N & M Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Cenacle Properties of L. I., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

N & M Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Cenacle Properties of L. I., Inc.

171 A.D.2d 653, 567 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3195

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 653 (N & M Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Cenacle Properties of L. I., Inc.) 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

N & M Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Cenacle Properties of L. I., Inc., 171 A.D.2d 653, 567 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to CPLR 3213 to recover the balance due on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated September 18, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the plaintiff that the promissory note sued on was an instrument for the payment of money only, within the meaning of CPLR 3213 (see, Gittleson v Dempster, 148 AD2d 578, 579; Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 AD2d 136, 137, affd 29 NY2d 617). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants’ fraudulent inducement claim does raise a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment relief (see, Millerton Agway Coop. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 NY2d 57; GTE Automatic Elec. v Martin’s Inc., 127 AD2d 545, 546; cf., Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90). Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to CPLR 3213 to recover the balance due on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated September 18, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the plaintiff that the promissory note sued on was an instrument for the payment of money only, within the meaning of CPLR 3213 (see, Gittleson v Dempster, 148 AD2d 578, 579; Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 AD2d 136, 137, affd 29 NY2d 617). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants’ fraudulent inducement claim does raise a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment relief (see, Millerton Agway Coop. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 NY2d 57; GTE Automatic Elec. v Martin’s Inc., 127 AD2d 545, 546; cf., Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90). Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 653, 567 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/n-m-plumbing-heating-corp-v-cenacle-properties-of-l-i-inc-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack