Rudes v. Magna Stables Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudes v. Magna Stables Co.

227 A.D.2d 236, 642 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187

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

DecidedMay 16, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 236 (Rudes v. Magna Stables Co.) 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

Rudes v. Magna Stables Co., 227 A.D.2d 236, 642 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered March 8, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint and defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the instant mortgage note is non-negotiable (see, UCC 3-104 [1] [b]; Matter of P & K Marble v La Piglia, 147 AD2d 804, 804-805). Therefore, plaintiff, as assignee of the note, took it subject to every defense maintainable against the assignor, defendants’ attorney (American Exch. Natl. Bank v Woodlawn Cemetery, 194 NY 116, 121). We also agree with the IAS Court that the record raises triable factual issues including the status of the assignee plaintiff and the role of defendants’ attorneys when the loan agreement was structured.

[237]*237We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find then to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered March 8, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint and defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the instant mortgage note is non-negotiable (see, UCC 3-104 [1] [b]; Matter of P & K Marble v La Piglia, 147 AD2d 804, 804-805). Therefore, plaintiff, as assignee of the note, took it subject to every defense maintainable against the assignor, defendants’ attorney (American Exch. Natl. Bank v Woodlawn Cemetery, 194 NY 116, 121). We also agree with the IAS Court that the record raises triable factual issues including the status of the assignee plaintiff and the role of defendants’ attorneys when the loan agreement was structured.

[237]*237We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find then to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 236, 642 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudes-v-magna-stables-co-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack