Pasqualini v. Tedesco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pasqualini v. Tedesco

248 A.D.2d 604, 669 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2888

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 23, 1998·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover on promissory notes, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered March 5, 1997, which denied the motion of the defendant Andria Tedesco for partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the appeals of Riccardo Tedesco and Ranado Tedesco are dismissed as they are not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant Andria Tedesco for summary judgment inasmuch as there exist triable issues of fact with respect to the authenticity of her signature on certain promissory notes (see, Rudnitsky v Robbins, 191 AD2d 488, 489; Dyckman v Barrett, 187 AD2d 553, 555; Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank v Tyson, 170 AD2d 818; cf., Spilky v Bernard H. La Lone, Jr., P. C., 227 AD2d 741).

Mengano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover on promissory notes, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered March 5, 1997, which denied the motion of the defendant Andria Tedesco for partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the appeals of Riccardo Tedesco and Ranado Tedesco are dismissed as they are not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant Andria Tedesco for summary judgment inasmuch as there exist triable issues of fact with respect to the authenticity of her signature on certain promissory notes (see, Rudnitsky v Robbins, 191 AD2d 488, 489; Dyckman v Barrett, 187 AD2d 553, 555; Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank v Tyson, 170 AD2d 818; cf., Spilky v Bernard H. La Lone, Jr., P. C., 227 AD2d 741).

Mengano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Pasqualini v. Tedesco, 248 A.D.2d 604, 669 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 604 (Pasqualini v. Tedesco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related