Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Martin Lithographics, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Martin Lithographics, Inc.

191 A.D.2d 617, 595 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2682

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 617 (Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Martin Lithographics, Inc.) 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

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Martin Lithographics, Inc., 191 A.D.2d 617, 595 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover payment on a promissory note and personal guarantees, the defendant Jeffrey Martin appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), entered January 17, 1991, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against him and directed the entry of judgment for the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $47,949.69.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the plaintiff hits made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Further, despite the appellant’s contentions, we find that he failed to present evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact. Therefore, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover payment on a promissory note and personal guarantees, the defendant Jeffrey Martin appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), entered January 17, 1991, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against him and directed the entry of judgment for the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $47,949.69.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the plaintiff hits made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Further, despite the appellant’s contentions, we find that he failed to present evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact. Therefore, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 617, 595 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manufacturers-hanover-trust-co-v-martin-lithographics-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack