Perpignan v. First Franklin Financial Corp.
This text of 87 A.D.3d 1117 (Perpignan v. First Franklin Financial Corp.) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
87 A.D.3d 1117, 929 N.Y.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perpignan-v-first-franklin-financial-corp-nyappdiv-2011.