Mathias & Carr, Inc. v. Mangini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mathias & Carr, Inc. v. Mangini

13 A.D.3d 148, 787 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15062

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 148 (Mathias & Carr, Inc. v. Mangini) 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

Mathias & Carr, Inc. v. Mangini, 13 A.D.3d 148, 787 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard E Braun, J.), entered on or about January 25, 2004, which, inter alia, dismissed the complaint as against defendants Mangini and Pricomm, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against Mangini since plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that said defendant made payments within six years of the commencement of the action (CPLR 213). The action was properly dismissed as against Pricomm, Essential’s alleged successor and plaintiffs’ tenant and business associate, in the absence of a writing showing that Pricomm had agreed with plaintiffs to assume Essential’s debt on the notes (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [2]), or that the payments that Pricomm made to plaintiffs were unequivocally referable to any such agreement (see Rosenheck v Calcam Assoc., 233 AD2d 553, 554 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard E Braun, J.), entered on or about January 25, 2004, which, inter alia, dismissed the complaint as against defendants Mangini and Pricomm, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against Mangini since plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that said defendant made payments within six years of the commencement of the action (CPLR 213). The action was properly dismissed as against Pricomm, Essential’s alleged successor and plaintiffs’ tenant and business associate, in the absence of a writing showing that Pricomm had agreed with plaintiffs to assume Essential’s debt on the notes (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [2]), or that the payments that Pricomm made to plaintiffs were unequivocally referable to any such agreement (see Rosenheck v Calcam Assoc., 233 AD2d 553, 554 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 148, 787 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathias-carr-inc-v-mangini-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack