Ljungberg v. Marino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ljungberg v. Marino

239 A.D.2d 952, 661 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6391

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

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 952 (Ljungberg v. Marino) 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

Ljungberg v. Marino, 239 A.D.2d 952, 661 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 on the ground that the action is not based upon an instrument for the payment of money only. The documentary evidence submitted by plaintiff "fails to recite any agreement by the parties on several vital terms” (Mesaba Serv. & Supply Co. v Freedman & Son, 111 AD2d 985, 986; see, Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437). Because "proof beyond the written instrument is necessary to substantiate the underlying obligation, resort to CPLR 3213 was inappropriate” (Mesaba Serv. & Supply Co. v Freedman & Son, supra, at 986). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 on the ground that the action is not based upon an instrument for the payment of money only. The documentary evidence submitted by plaintiff "fails to recite any agreement by the parties on several vital terms” (Mesaba Serv. & Supply Co. v Freedman & Son, 111 AD2d 985, 986; see, Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437). Because "proof beyond the written instrument is necessary to substantiate the underlying obligation, resort to CPLR 3213 was inappropriate” (Mesaba Serv. & Supply Co. v Freedman & Son, supra, at 986). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 952, 661 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ljungberg-v-marino-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack