Nuri Farhadi, Inc. v. Anavian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nuri Farhadi, Inc. v. Anavian

58 A.D.2d 546, 396 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12549

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

DecidedJune 28, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 546 (Nuri Farhadi, Inc. v. Anavian) 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

Nuri Farhadi, Inc. v. Anavian, 58 A.D.2d 546, 396 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 1, 1976, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The defendant made two unconditional, undated promissory notes, one in favor of the plaintiff corporation in the amount of $15,000, and the other in favor of the individual plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. We find that no cognizable defense or material issue of fact has been asserted by the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment in their favor. The fact that the notes in issue were undated does not invalidate them but, rather, makes them payable on demand (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-

[547]*547108). Parenthetically, we note that our affirmance of the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is without prejudice to any action defendant might be advised to take with regard to the allegations interposed by defendant and characterized as a counterclaim, which allegations are asserted as a separate claim in another action brought by Habib Anavian against Nuri Farhadi and Nuri Farhadi, Inc. (cf. Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 31 AD2d 922, 923). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 1, 1976, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The defendant made two unconditional, undated promissory notes, one in favor of the plaintiff corporation in the amount of $15,000, and the other in favor of the individual plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. We find that no cognizable defense or material issue of fact has been asserted by the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment in their favor. The fact that the notes in issue were undated does not invalidate them but, rather, makes them payable on demand (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-

[547]*547108). Parenthetically, we note that our affirmance of the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is without prejudice to any action defendant might be advised to take with regard to the allegations interposed by defendant and characterized as a counterclaim, which allegations are asserted as a separate claim in another action brought by Habib Anavian against Nuri Farhadi and Nuri Farhadi, Inc. (cf. Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 31 AD2d 922, 923). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 546, 396 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nuri-farhadi-inc-v-anavian-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack