Marine Midland Tinker National Bank v. Ataipa Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marine Midland Tinker National Bank v. Ataipa Construction Corp.

73 A.D.2d 639, 422 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14457

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 639 (Marine Midland Tinker National Bank v. Ataipa Construction Corp.) 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

Marine Midland Tinker National Bank v. Ataipa Construction Corp., 73 A.D.2d 639, 422 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 3, 1979, which denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff is granted. With respect to the enforceability of the promissory note, executed by the defendant Ataipa Construction Corporation on November 13, 1974, and the prior guarantees, we find that there are no triable issues of fact which can defeat the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Lazer and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 3, 1979, which denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff is granted. With respect to the enforceability of the promissory note, executed by the defendant Ataipa Construction Corporation on November 13, 1974, and the prior guarantees, we find that there are no triable issues of fact which can defeat the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Lazer and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 639, 422 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-midland-tinker-national-bank-v-ataipa-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1979.