Solanki v. Pandya

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Solanki v. Pandya

269 A.D.2d 189, 702 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1131

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 189 (Solanki v. Pandya) 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

Solanki v. Pandya, 269 A.D.2d 189, 702 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 23, 1998, which granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, since the subject promissory note, in the amount of $126,000, evidenced an unconditional promise by defendant to pay plaintiff a sum certain over a stated period (see, Maglich v Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, 97 AD2d 19, 22). That the note was secured by a 100% share in a business owned by defendant does not alter its essential character as an instrument for the payment of money only and, accordingly, is immaterial to plaintiff’s right to relief pursuant to CPLR 3213. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 23, 1998, which granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, since the subject promissory note, in the amount of $126,000, evidenced an unconditional promise by defendant to pay plaintiff a sum certain over a stated period (see, Maglich v Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, 97 AD2d 19, 22). That the note was secured by a 100% share in a business owned by defendant does not alter its essential character as an instrument for the payment of money only and, accordingly, is immaterial to plaintiff’s right to relief pursuant to CPLR 3213. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 189, 702 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solanki-v-pandya-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack