Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Reichlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Reichlin

182 A.D.2d 453

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

DecidedApril 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 453 (Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Reichlin) 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

Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Reichlin, 182 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered February 13, 1991, which granted plaintiff summary judgment in lieu of complaint, and the judgment entered April 21, 1991 pursuant thereto, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

"Execution [of the note] and default having been conceded, it was incumbent on defendants to come forward with evidentiary proof sufficient to raise an issue as to the defenses.” (Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 AD2d 136, 137-138, affd 29 NY2d 617.) As plaintiff bank has shown execution and default, and the defendants have utterly failed to come forth with proof in evidentiary form tending to establish their defenses of lack of consideration, economic duress, payment and fraud, the IAS Court appropriately granted summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered February 13, 1991, which granted plaintiff summary judgment in lieu of complaint, and the judgment entered April 21, 1991 pursuant thereto, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

"Execution [of the note] and default having been conceded, it was incumbent on defendants to come forward with evidentiary proof sufficient to raise an issue as to the defenses.” (Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 AD2d 136, 137-138, affd 29 NY2d 617.) As plaintiff bank has shown execution and default, and the defendants have utterly failed to come forth with proof in evidentiary form tending to establish their defenses of lack of consideration, economic duress, payment and fraud, the IAS Court appropriately granted summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-guaranty-trust-co-v-reichlin-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack