Merchants Bank v. Abraham Friedman Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merchants Bank v. Abraham Friedman Co.

206 A.D.2d 333, 615 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7960

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

DecidedJuly 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 333 (Merchants Bank v. Abraham Friedman Co.) 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

Merchants Bank v. Abraham Friedman Co., 206 A.D.2d 333, 615 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered November 20, 1992, which granted, inter alia, partial summary judgment on a promissory note, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that General Obligations Law § 15-301 (1) precludes oral modification of this integrated contract (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v D’Evori Intl., 163 AD2d 26, 30). In addition, the defendants have presented no evidence to support their bare assertions that the sale of the collateral was improper. Summary judgment was therefore warranted.

We have considered the defendants’ additional arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered November 20, 1992, which granted, inter alia, partial summary judgment on a promissory note, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that General Obligations Law § 15-301 (1) precludes oral modification of this integrated contract (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v D’Evori Intl., 163 AD2d 26, 30). In addition, the defendants have presented no evidence to support their bare assertions that the sale of the collateral was improper. Summary judgment was therefore warranted.

We have considered the defendants’ additional arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 333, 615 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-bank-v-abraham-friedman-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack