Lam King Yee v. Klisivitch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lam King Yee v. Klisivitch

2017 NY Slip Op 150, 146 A.D.3d 767, 43 N.Y.S.3d 916

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 11, 2017

Docket2014-09621

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 150 (Lam King Yee v. Klisivitch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lam King Yee v. Klisivitch, 2017 NY Slip Op 150, 146 A.D.3d 767, 43 N.Y.S.3d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martin, J.), dated July 10, 2014, as denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*768 The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the existence of a promissory note executed by the defendant, the unconditional terms of repayment, and the defendant’s default thereunder (see Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437, 444 [1996]; Cooper Capital Group, Ltd. v Densen, 104 AD3d 898, 898 [2013]; Sound Shore Med. Ctr. of Westchester v Maloney, 96 AD3d 823, 823 [2012]; Haselnuss v Delta Testing Labs., 249 AD2d 509 [1998]; East N.Y. Sav. Bank v Baccaray, 214 AD2d 601, 602 [1995]). However, in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to the validity of the promissory note by submitting evidence that the note was part of a fraudulent transaction, which had been engineered by the defendant’s husband, whom she was in the process of divorcing, and who was the plaintiff’s friend and business partner.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Dillon, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martin, J.), dated July 10, 2014, as denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*768 The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the existence of a promissory note executed by the defendant, the unconditional terms of repayment, and the defendant’s default thereunder (see Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437, 444 [1996]; Cooper Capital Group, Ltd. v Densen, 104 AD3d 898, 898 [2013]; Sound Shore Med. Ctr. of Westchester v Maloney, 96 AD3d 823, 823 [2012]; Haselnuss v Delta Testing Labs., 249 AD2d 509 [1998]; East N.Y. Sav. Bank v Baccaray, 214 AD2d 601, 602 [1995]). However, in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to the validity of the promissory note by submitting evidence that the note was part of a fraudulent transaction, which had been engineered by the defendant’s husband, whom she was in the process of divorcing, and who was the plaintiff’s friend and business partner.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Dillon, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 150, 146 A.D.3d 767, 43 N.Y.S.3d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lam-king-yee-v-klisivitch-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack