Midlantic Commercial Leasing Corp. v. Sierra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Midlantic Commercial Leasing Corp. v. Sierra

201 A.D.2d 629, 609 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1467

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 629 (Midlantic Commercial Leasing Corp. v. Sierra) 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

Midlantic Commercial Leasing Corp. v. Sierra, 201 A.D.2d 629, 609 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover sums due under a lease of certain equipment, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered August 28, 1991, which, upon an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $21,099.33.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that no triable issues of fact exist (see, CPLR 3212). The defendants’ contention that the plaintiff recovered possession of the leased equipment [630]*630before obtaining a money judgment for payments due under the lease, which amounted to a security agreement (see, UCC 1-201 [37]; 9-102 [2]), is speculative and unsupported. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Rowland v 1306 Realty Associated, 193 AD2d 726; Jones v Gameray, 153 AD2d 550, 551).

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover sums due under a lease of certain equipment, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered August 28, 1991, which, upon an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $21,099.33.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that no triable issues of fact exist (see, CPLR 3212). The defendants’ contention that the plaintiff recovered possession of the leased equipment [630]*630before obtaining a money judgment for payments due under the lease, which amounted to a security agreement (see, UCC 1-201 [37]; 9-102 [2]), is speculative and unsupported. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Rowland v 1306 Realty Associated, 193 AD2d 726; Jones v Gameray, 153 AD2d 550, 551).

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 629, 609 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midlantic-commercial-leasing-corp-v-sierra-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack