Modernization Contracts Corp. v. Sadonis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Modernization Contracts Corp. v. Sadonis

256 A.D. 877, 9 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5214

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 877 (Modernization Contracts Corp. v. Sadonis) 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

Modernization Contracts Corp. v. Sadonis, 256 A.D. 877, 9 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff has appealed from an order of the Broome County Court, denying its motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The action is to recover upon a promissory note made by defendants to Radiator Heating Company of which note plaintiff became the owner in due course. The complaint alleges the execution and delivery [878]*878of the note for a valuable consideration, its negotiation before maturity, that plaintiff is the owner and that defendants have defaulted in payment. The answer contains five defenses which would have constituted defenses if the note were in the hands of the Radiator Heating Company but which are not available against plaintiff. There is no triable issue. Order reversed, on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment granted. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur.

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

Plaintiff has appealed from an order of the Broome County Court, denying its motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The action is to recover upon a promissory note made by defendants to Radiator Heating Company of which note plaintiff became the owner in due course. The complaint alleges the execution and delivery [878]*878of the note for a valuable consideration, its negotiation before maturity, that plaintiff is the owner and that defendants have defaulted in payment. The answer contains five defenses which would have constituted defenses if the note were in the hands of the Radiator Heating Company but which are not available against plaintiff. There is no triable issue. Order reversed, on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment granted. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 877, 9 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/modernization-contracts-corp-v-sadonis-nyappdiv-1939.