Pascal v. Tardera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pascal v. Tardera

123 A.D.2d 752, 507 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60893

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 20, 1986·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered November 19, 1984, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $10,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant is the maker of a promissory note, dated December 23, 1982, in the amount of $10,000, payable to the plaintiff on or before January 7, 1983. Because the note was not payable "to order or to bearer” (see, UCC 3-104 [1] [d]), the plaintiff payee did not hold it in due course (UCC 3-805) and was, therefore, subject to the defense of want or failure of consideration (UCC 3-306 [c]). However, the evidence adduced at trial supports the trial court’s determination that there was ample consideration for the defendant’s promise to pay, inasmuch as the note was given to secure a loan of $10,000 by the plaintiff to the defendant.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered November 19, 1984, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $10,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant is the maker of a promissory note, dated December 23, 1982, in the amount of $10,000, payable to the plaintiff on or before January 7, 1983. Because the note was not payable "to order or to bearer” (see, UCC 3-104 [1] [d]), the plaintiff payee did not hold it in due course (UCC 3-805) and was, therefore, subject to the defense of want or failure of consideration (UCC 3-306 [c]). However, the evidence adduced at trial supports the trial court’s determination that there was ample consideration for the defendant’s promise to pay, inasmuch as the note was given to secure a loan of $10,000 by the plaintiff to the defendant.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Pascal v. Tardera, 123 A.D.2d 752, 507 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

123 A.D.2d 752 (Pascal v. Tardera) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related