Richmond Plaza Associates v. Santucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richmond Plaza Associates v. Santucci

192 A.D.2d 412, 596 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3851

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 20, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 412 (Richmond Plaza Associates v. Santucci) 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

Richmond Plaza Associates v. Santucci, 192 A.D.2d 412, 596 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on or about February 21, 1992, granting plaintiffs motion, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant failed to rebut plaintiffs prima facie showing that the promissory note was valid and that defendant failed to make payment in accordance with its terms (see, Kornfeld v NRX Technologies, 93 AD2d 772, 773, affd 62 NY2d 686). Defendant’s conclusory allegation that his investment subscription was fraudulently obtained is of no avail because the alleged misrepresentation was committed by defendant’s investment advisor, not plaintiff. Also unavailing is defendant’s contention that the existence of issues of fact concerning a breach of contract by plaintiff should defeat the summary judgment motion. It is not disputed that defendant received a limited partnership interest in exchange for unconditional promises to pay money recited in the promissory notes; any subsequent breaches of fiduciary duties by plaintiff that defendant labels a "failure of consideration” are separate and distinct from the execution of the notes (see, Fopeco, Inc. v General Coatings Technologies, 107 AD2d 609). Concur — Carro, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on or about February 21, 1992, granting plaintiffs motion, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant failed to rebut plaintiffs prima facie showing that the promissory note was valid and that defendant failed to make payment in accordance with its terms (see, Kornfeld v NRX Technologies, 93 AD2d 772, 773, affd 62 NY2d 686). Defendant’s conclusory allegation that his investment subscription was fraudulently obtained is of no avail because the alleged misrepresentation was committed by defendant’s investment advisor, not plaintiff. Also unavailing is defendant’s contention that the existence of issues of fact concerning a breach of contract by plaintiff should defeat the summary judgment motion. It is not disputed that defendant received a limited partnership interest in exchange for unconditional promises to pay money recited in the promissory notes; any subsequent breaches of fiduciary duties by plaintiff that defendant labels a "failure of consideration” are separate and distinct from the execution of the notes (see, Fopeco, Inc. v General Coatings Technologies, 107 AD2d 609). Concur — Carro, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 412, 596 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-plaza-associates-v-santucci-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack