RVC Associates v. Farkas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

RVC Associates v. Farkas

261 A.D.2d 383, 689 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4529

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 383 (RVC Associates v. Farkas) 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

RVC Associates v. Farkas, 261 A.D.2d 383, 689 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover on a promissory note, brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated July 23, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment in the principal amount of $70,833.22 plus interest.

In support of its motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (see, CPLR 3213), the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the promissory note executed by the parties and demonstrating that the defendants had defaulted in payment thereon (see, Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727). In opposition to the summary judgment motion, the defendants failed to submit adequate proof of an evidentiary nature to substantiate their allegations that they were fraudulently induced into executing the promissory note (see, Doby’s Delicatessen v Brunkard, 202 AD2d 626). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover on a promissory note, brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated July 23, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment in the principal amount of $70,833.22 plus interest.

In support of its motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (see, CPLR 3213), the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the promissory note executed by the parties and demonstrating that the defendants had defaulted in payment thereon (see, Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727). In opposition to the summary judgment motion, the defendants failed to submit adequate proof of an evidentiary nature to substantiate their allegations that they were fraudulently induced into executing the promissory note (see, Doby’s Delicatessen v Brunkard, 202 AD2d 626). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 383, 689 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rvc-associates-v-farkas-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack