Sterling National Bank v. American Elite Properties Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sterling National Bank v. American Elite Properties Inc.

91 A.D.3d 581, 937 N.Y.2d 221

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 581 (Sterling National Bank v. American Elite Properties 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

Sterling National Bank v. American Elite Properties Inc., 91 A.D.3d 581, 937 N.Y.2d 221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that portion of the cross motion seeking leave to serve an amended answer, as the proposed amendment to add the affirmative defense of release lacked merit. The release upon which the amended pleading was premised did not pertain to the equipment at issue (see CPLR 3025 [b]; 360 W. 11th LLC v ACG Credit Co. II, LLC, 90 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2011]; Nab-Tern Constructors v City of New York, 123 AD2d 571, 572-573 [1986]; compare Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694, 695 [2011]).

The general release explicitly references lease schedule number 728-177-101 and only applies to claims preceding the release. The equipment at issue in this action is the equipment pertaining to lease schedule number 728-177-105, which is entirely distinct. Moreover, the lease schedule at issue here was not executed until a year after the general release was executed. Accordingly, the release cannot, by its own terms, apply to the equipment at issue.

We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that portion of the cross motion seeking leave to serve an amended answer, as the proposed amendment to add the affirmative defense of release lacked merit. The release upon which the amended pleading was premised did not pertain to the equipment at issue (see CPLR 3025 [b]; 360 W. 11th LLC v ACG Credit Co. II, LLC, 90 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2011]; Nab-Tern Constructors v City of New York, 123 AD2d 571, 572-573 [1986]; compare Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694, 695 [2011]).

The general release explicitly references lease schedule number 728-177-101 and only applies to claims preceding the release. The equipment at issue in this action is the equipment pertaining to lease schedule number 728-177-105, which is entirely distinct. Moreover, the lease schedule at issue here was not executed until a year after the general release was executed. Accordingly, the release cannot, by its own terms, apply to the equipment at issue.

We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 581, 937 N.Y.2d 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-national-bank-v-american-elite-properties-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack