Norstar Bank of Upstate New York v. Bennett Funding Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Norstar Bank of Upstate New York v. Bennett Funding Group

167 A.D.2d 961, 563 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14557

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 961 (Norstar Bank of Upstate New York v. Bennett Funding Group) 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

Norstar Bank of Upstate New York v. Bennett Funding Group, 167 A.D.2d 961, 563 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant for recovery of collateral pursuant to a security agreement between the Bank of New York and Cole Copy Systems, Inc. Plaintiff failed to establish, by evidence in admissible form, that it was an assignee of the Bank of New York’s perfected security interest. Moreover, plaintiff has not established that the collateral was in fact transferred, or that defendant is in possession of the collateral or the proceeds from the sale of it. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for an order limiting issues of fact for trial (see, CPLR 3212 [g]; Newell Co. v Rice, 158 AD2d 993). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant for recovery of collateral pursuant to a security agreement between the Bank of New York and Cole Copy Systems, Inc. Plaintiff failed to establish, by evidence in admissible form, that it was an assignee of the Bank of New York’s perfected security interest. Moreover, plaintiff has not established that the collateral was in fact transferred, or that defendant is in possession of the collateral or the proceeds from the sale of it. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for an order limiting issues of fact for trial (see, CPLR 3212 [g]; Newell Co. v Rice, 158 AD2d 993). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 961, 563 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norstar-bank-of-upstate-new-york-v-bennett-funding-group-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack