Marine Midland Trust Co. v. Bloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marine Midland Trust Co. v. Bloom

40 A.D.2d 580, 334 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4081

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 580 (Marine Midland Trust Co. v. Bloom) 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 Trust Co. v. Bloom, 40 A.D.2d 580, 334 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The trial court failed to set forth the findings required by CPLR 4213 (subd. [b]). However, since the record is complete, we supply the necessary findings. (Mobil Oil Corp. v. Livingston, 37 A D 2d 796.) Plaintiff proved that for value received, Benjamin Bloom and Henry Bloom on October 13,1967 made, executed and delivered an instrument in writing wherein they jointly and severally promised "to pay to the order of plaintiff the sum of $32,000 three months after date; that Benjamin Bloom died in December, 1967 and defendant Sarah Bloom was appointed administratrix of his estate; and(that plaintiff was still the holder of the note and the unpaid balance Was $23,171.79 [581]*581with interest from April 15, 1969. Defendant failed to prove any defense to the action and, accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to the judgment granted by the trial court. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Special Term, granting summary judgment on note.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The trial court failed to set forth the findings required by CPLR 4213 (subd. [b]). However, since the record is complete, we supply the necessary findings. (Mobil Oil Corp. v. Livingston, 37 A D 2d 796.) Plaintiff proved that for value received, Benjamin Bloom and Henry Bloom on October 13,1967 made, executed and delivered an instrument in writing wherein they jointly and severally promised "to pay to the order of plaintiff the sum of $32,000 three months after date; that Benjamin Bloom died in December, 1967 and defendant Sarah Bloom was appointed administratrix of his estate; and(that plaintiff was still the holder of the note and the unpaid balance Was $23,171.79 [581]*581with interest from April 15, 1969. Defendant failed to prove any defense to the action and, accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to the judgment granted by the trial court. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Special Term, granting summary judgment on note.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 580, 334 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-midland-trust-co-v-bloom-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack