North American Pneumatic Tube Co. v. Mishkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North American Pneumatic Tube Co. v. Mishkin

203 A.D.2d 944, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4954

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

DecidedApril 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 944 (North American Pneumatic Tube Co. v. Mishkin) 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

North American Pneumatic Tube Co. v. Mishkin, 203 A.D.2d 944, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment based on proof of the existence of the promissory note and nonpayment (see, Alicanto v Woolverton, 142 AD2d 703, lv denied 73 NY2d 702; Grasso v Shutts Agency, 132 AD2d 768, appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 797). The parol evidence proffered by defendant was an impermissible attempt to alter the express terms of that unambiguous note and was insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see, Kornfeld v NRX Technologies, 93 AD2d 772, affd 62 NY2d 686; Alicanto v Woolverton, supra; Grasso v Shutts Agency, supra). Supreme Court’s earlier denial without prejudice of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint did not preclude plaintiffs cross motion (see, Technical Tape v Spray-Tuck, Inc., 146 AD2d 517, 518, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 791). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Boehm, 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 granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment based on proof of the existence of the promissory note and nonpayment (see, Alicanto v Woolverton, 142 AD2d 703, lv denied 73 NY2d 702; Grasso v Shutts Agency, 132 AD2d 768, appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 797). The parol evidence proffered by defendant was an impermissible attempt to alter the express terms of that unambiguous note and was insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see, Kornfeld v NRX Technologies, 93 AD2d 772, affd 62 NY2d 686; Alicanto v Woolverton, supra; Grasso v Shutts Agency, supra). Supreme Court’s earlier denial without prejudice of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint did not preclude plaintiffs cross motion (see, Technical Tape v Spray-Tuck, Inc., 146 AD2d 517, 518, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 791). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 944, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-american-pneumatic-tube-co-v-mishkin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack