Preciosa USA, Inc. v. Weiss & Biheller, MDSE, Corp.

127 A.D.3d 1156, 5 N.Y.S.3d 909
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 29, 2015
Docket2014-05540
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1156 (Preciosa USA, Inc. v. Weiss & Biheller, MDSE, 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.

Bluebook
Preciosa USA, Inc. v. Weiss & Biheller, MDSE, Corp., 127 A.D.3d 1156, 5 N.Y.S.3d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In an action to recover upon an instrument for the payment of money only, brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated April 9, 2014, which granted the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, the subject promissory note, which contained an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to pay, and proof of the defendants’ failure to make payments on the note according to its terms (see Nunez v Channel Grocery & Deli Corp., 124 AD3d 734 [2015]; Griffon V, LLC v 11 E. 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d 705, 706 [2011]).

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see East N.Y. Sav. Bank v Baccaray, 214 AD2d 601, 603 [1995]). The defendants’ contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the Supreme Court improperly considered an unsworn affidavit from the plaintiffs principal, is not properly before this Court.

Furthermore, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the subject note was not “inextricably intertwined” with certain other allegedly related agreements the parties entered into, such that the plaintiffs alleged breach of those agreements may create a defense to payment on the note (New York Community Bank v Fessler, 88 AD3d 667, 668 [2011]; cf. Fitzpatrick v Animal Care Hosp., PLLC, 104 AD3d 1078, 1080 [2013]; Lorber v Morovati, 83 AD3d 799, 800 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the *1157 plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213.

Rivera, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dime Community Bank v. Brigade Holdings, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 01788 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Reiss v. Professional Grade Constr. Group, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 3832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Margarella v. Ullian
2018 NY Slip Op 5926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Estate of Hansraj v. Sukhu
2016 NY Slip Op 8345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Chervinsky v. Rezhets
132 A.D.3d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Mirham v. Awad
131 A.D.3d 1211 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.3d 1156, 5 N.Y.S.3d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preciosa-usa-inc-v-weiss-biheller-mdse-corp-nyappdiv-2015.