Tesla Capital, LLC v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tesla Capital, LLC v. Jones

31 A.D.3d 434, 817 N.Y.S.2d 510

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.3d 434 (Tesla Capital, LLC v. Jones) 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

Tesla Capital, LLC v. Jones, 31 A.D.3d 434, 817 N.Y.S.2d 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CFLR 3213, the plaintiff and the additional counterclaim defendant appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered July 29, 2005, which denied their motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims and setoffs.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the counterclaims and setoffs are dismissed.

The defendant’s “Amended Counterclaims and Set-Offs as of Right” asserted September 1, 2004, were not properly maintainable in this action, which had been concluded by judgment entered June 3, 2004. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, 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 CFLR 3213, the plaintiff and the additional counterclaim defendant appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered July 29, 2005, which denied their motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims and setoffs.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the counterclaims and setoffs are dismissed.

The defendant’s “Amended Counterclaims and Set-Offs as of Right” asserted September 1, 2004, were not properly maintainable in this action, which had been concluded by judgment entered June 3, 2004. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 434, 817 N.Y.S.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tesla-capital-llc-v-jones-nyappdiv-2006.