Salrex Investments, Inc. v. M. Slavin & Sons, Inc.

214 A.D.2d 399, 625 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 13, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 399 (Salrex Investments, Inc. v. M. Slavin & Sons, Inc.) 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
Salrex Investments, Inc. v. M. Slavin & Sons, Inc., 214 A.D.2d 399, 625 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered on or about June 18, 1994, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted, with costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $240,000, plus interest from November 26, 1985, with costs.

[400]*400In an action on a promissory note, where the documentary evidence conclusively indicates the existence of a loan, summary judgment will not be precluded based solely on the unsupported statement of the debtor indicating that the transaction was made to appear to be a loan for ill-defined tax purposes (see, Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255).

In the instant case, no remotely credible reason is offered as to why defendant’s principal would have signed notes clearly stating that he owed $270,000 in reliance on an oral representation that he did not really owe anything, or why he actually proceeded to make a payment of $30,000 on this supposedly non-existent debt on another oral representation that he would get it back. Nor has defendant’s principal raised a triable issue of fact concerning his bald unsupported assertion that the security agreement, which accompanied the notes and makes clear that the debt is, indeed, a debt, bears a signature that, despite its appearance to the contrary, is not his (see, Joint Venture Asset Acquisition v Tufano, 203 AD2d 102). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Estate of Knobel v. Echeverria
2026 NY Slip Op 30673(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Schaeffer v. May
2023 NY Slip Op 01152 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Pell Street Nineteen Corp. v. Yue Er Liu Mah
243 A.D.2d 121 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Key Bank of Maine v. Lisi
225 A.D.2d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 A.D.2d 399, 625 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salrex-investments-inc-v-m-slavin-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1995.