Merchants T & F, Inc. v. Druker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merchants T & F, Inc. v. Druker

288 A.D.2d 153, 734 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11552

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 153 (Merchants T & F, Inc. v. Druker) 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 T & F, Inc. v. Druker, 288 A.D.2d 153, 734 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about November 8, 2000, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed,, without costs.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly denied. The documentary evidence relied upon by defendant, an unverified copy of a wire transfer confirmation of payment made, without information as to what the payment was for or the nature of the relationship of the parties to the transaction, does not conclusively establish a defense based on documentary evidence to plaintiffs claims as a matter of law (see, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v Tim’s Amusements, 275 AD2d 243, 246).

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in excusing plaintiffs delay in serving the amended complaint (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 2005; see also, Enax v New York Tel. Co., 280 AD2d 294, 295-296). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about November 8, 2000, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed,, without costs.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly denied. The documentary evidence relied upon by defendant, an unverified copy of a wire transfer confirmation of payment made, without information as to what the payment was for or the nature of the relationship of the parties to the transaction, does not conclusively establish a defense based on documentary evidence to plaintiffs claims as a matter of law (see, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v Tim’s Amusements, 275 AD2d 243, 246).

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in excusing plaintiffs delay in serving the amended complaint (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 2005; see also, Enax v New York Tel. Co., 280 AD2d 294, 295-296). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 153, 734 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-t-f-inc-v-druker-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack