Omega Equities Corp. v. Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Omega Equities Corp. v. Levy

34 A.D.2d 938, 312 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407

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

DecidedJune 23, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 938 (Omega Equities Corp. v. Levy) 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

Omega Equities Corp. v. Levy, 34 A.D.2d 938, 312 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order entered January 27, 1970 denying motion of plaintiff-appellant in Action No. 1 for summary judgment and granting motion of plaintiffs-respondents in Action No. 2 for consolidation of the actions for trial, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the'motion for summary judgment granted and that for consolidation denied. Action No. 1 by Omega Equities Corporation is upon a matured promissory note, delivered with certain conditions imposed upon it, every one of which has been honored by the payee. Defendants in that action have shown nothing to the contrary in their papers but have repeated, in opposition, the allegations of the complaint in Action No. 2, claiming that everything blends into a single transaction. This is not a basis for resistance to the claim upon the note (Pease & Elliman v. 926 Park Ave. Oorp., 23 A D 2d 361, affd. 17 N Y 2d 890), and the payee is entitled to summary judgment. Obviously, then, the application for consolidation is rendered academic. Since there is every indication of Omega’s financial stability and its ability to satisfy any judgment against it that might eventuate in Action No. 2, we see no need to employ the expedient of stay of execution directed in Dalminter Inc. V. Dalmine S.p.A. (29 A D 2d 852, affd. 23 N Y 2d 653). Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

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

—Order entered January 27, 1970 denying motion of plaintiff-appellant in Action No. 1 for summary judgment and granting motion of plaintiffs-respondents in Action No. 2 for consolidation of the actions for trial, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the'motion for summary judgment granted and that for consolidation denied. Action No. 1 by Omega Equities Corporation is upon a matured promissory note, delivered with certain conditions imposed upon it, every one of which has been honored by the payee. Defendants in that action have shown nothing to the contrary in their papers but have repeated, in opposition, the allegations of the complaint in Action No. 2, claiming that everything blends into a single transaction. This is not a basis for resistance to the claim upon the note (Pease & Elliman v. 926 Park Ave. Oorp., 23 A D 2d 361, affd. 17 N Y 2d 890), and the payee is entitled to summary judgment. Obviously, then, the application for consolidation is rendered academic. Since there is every indication of Omega’s financial stability and its ability to satisfy any judgment against it that might eventuate in Action No. 2, we see no need to employ the expedient of stay of execution directed in Dalminter Inc. V. Dalmine S.p.A. (29 A D 2d 852, affd. 23 N Y 2d 653). Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 938, 312 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omega-equities-corp-v-levy-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack