McCann v. Cronin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCann v. Cronin

276 A.D.2d 472, 713 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9869

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 2000·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover on two promissory notes brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff .appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 28, 1999, which denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the promissory notes and demonstrating that the defendant had defaulted in [473] payment thereon (see, Badenhop v Badenhop, 271 AD2d 386). In opposition, the defendant failed to establish that a triable issue óf fact existed (see, J.L.B. Equities v Mind Over Money, 261 AD2d 510; Judarl, L. L. C. v Cycletech, Inc., 246 AD2d 736; Friends Lbr. v Cornell Dev. Corp., 243 AD2d 886, 887). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Florin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on two promissory notes brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff .appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 28, 1999, which denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the promissory notes and demonstrating that the defendant had defaulted in [473] payment thereon (see, Badenhop v Badenhop, 271 AD2d 386). In opposition, the defendant failed to establish that a triable issue óf fact existed (see, J.L.B. Equities v Mind Over Money, 261 AD2d 510; Judarl, L. L. C. v Cycletech, Inc., 246 AD2d 736; Friends Lbr. v Cornell Dev. Corp., 243 AD2d 886, 887). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Florin, JJ., concur.

McCann v. Cronin, 276 A.D.2d 472, 713 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 472 (McCann v. Cronin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related