Murphy v. Reardon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Reardon

211 A.D.2d 704, 621 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 489

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 704 (Murphy v. Reardon) 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

Murphy v. Reardon, 211 A.D.2d 704, 621 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated June 30, 1993, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The unambiguous and unconditional nature of the promissory note which the defendant issued to the plaintiff barred consideration of the parol evidence regarding an alleged oral agreement between the parties which the defendant submitted in opposition to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see, Albino v Lipstein, 209 AD2d 655). We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated June 30, 1993, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The unambiguous and unconditional nature of the promissory note which the defendant issued to the plaintiff barred consideration of the parol evidence regarding an alleged oral agreement between the parties which the defendant submitted in opposition to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see, Albino v Lipstein, 209 AD2d 655). We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 704, 621 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-reardon-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack