Superior Group Ventures, Inc. v. Carocelli, Inc.

241 A.D.2d 489, 661 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7384

This text of 241 A.D.2d 489 (Superior Group Ventures, Inc. v. Carocelli, 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
Superior Group Ventures, Inc. v. Carocelli, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 489, 661 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kalinowski, J.H.O.), entered October 27, 1995, which, after a nonjury trial, [490]*490dismissed the complaint and is in favor of the defendants on their counterclaims and against the plaintiff in the principal amount of $6,358.09.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as there was no delivery of the promissory note in question by the escrow agent to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not establish that it was entitled to delivery of the note pursuant to the terms of the oral escrow agreement, the trial court properly dismissed the complaint, which had been predicated on the promissory note (see, Balart v Romeo, 215 AD2d 616).

Moreover, the trial court’s findings as to the merit of certain of the defendants’ counterclaims find ample support in the record. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Balart v. Romeo
215 A.D.2d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 A.D.2d 489, 661 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/superior-group-ventures-inc-v-carocelli-inc-nyappdiv-1997.