Perpignan v. First Franklin Financial Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perpignan v. First Franklin Financial Corp.

87 A.D.3d 1117, 929 N.Y.2d 882

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 2011·Published

Opinion

The plaintiff seeks the discharge of his obligation under a promissory note, on the ground that the note was materially [1118]*1118altered after he executed it. However, the plaintiff failed to allege any manner in which the note was materially altered (see UCC 3-407, 3-202; cf. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Allen, 232 AD2d 80, 85-86 [1997]; NAB Asset Venture III v Stanley Simon Diamonds, Inc., 236 AD2d 291 [1997]; Modern Indus. Bank v Woodman, 263 App Div 1019, 1020 [1942]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Skelos, J.E, Eng, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff seeks the discharge of his obligation under a promissory note, on the ground that the note was materially [1118]*1118altered after he executed it. However, the plaintiff failed to allege any manner in which the note was materially altered (see UCC 3-407, 3-202; cf. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Allen, 232 AD2d 80, 85-86 [1997]; NAB Asset Venture III v Stanley Simon Diamonds, Inc., 236 AD2d 291 [1997]; Modern Indus. Bank v Woodman, 263 App Div 1019, 1020 [1942]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Skelos, J.E, Eng, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Perpignan v. First Franklin Financial Corp., 87 A.D.3d 1117, 929 N.Y.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

87 A.D.3d 1117 (Perpignan v. First Franklin Financial Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related