Orr v. Yun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orr v. Yun

83 A.D.3d 525, 921 N.Y.S.2d 70

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

DecidedApril 19, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 525 (Orr v. Yun) 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

Orr v. Yun, 83 A.D.3d 525, 921 N.Y.S.2d 70 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 22, 2010, which, in an action seeking payment on a promissory note, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter law by producing the promissory note executed by defendants and demonstrating that they failed to pay (see Judarl v Cycletech, Inc., 246 AD2d 736, 737 [1998]). In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff fraudulently induced them to execute the note (see e.g. Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v Ponjnitayapanu, 214 AD2d 352 [1995]).

There is no evidence that when executing the note defendants actually relied on any misrepresentations by plaintiff as to his qualifications. Rather, it is undisputed that they executed the note in exchange for rescinding their pre-existing agreement because they were dissatisfied with the results of their business venture with plaintiff.

[526]*526We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 22, 2010, which, in an action seeking payment on a promissory note, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter law by producing the promissory note executed by defendants and demonstrating that they failed to pay (see Judarl v Cycletech, Inc., 246 AD2d 736, 737 [1998]). In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff fraudulently induced them to execute the note (see e.g. Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v Ponjnitayapanu, 214 AD2d 352 [1995]).

There is no evidence that when executing the note defendants actually relied on any misrepresentations by plaintiff as to his qualifications. Rather, it is undisputed that they executed the note in exchange for rescinding their pre-existing agreement because they were dissatisfied with the results of their business venture with plaintiff.

[526]*526We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 525, 921 N.Y.S.2d 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-v-yun-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack