Trimble v. Beaudry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trimble v. Beaudry

2 A.D.2d 704, 152 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4989

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

DecidedJune 18, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 704 (Trimble v. Beaudry) 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

Trimble v. Beaudry, 2 A.D.2d 704, 152 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4989 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

The complaint alleges that on or about January 31, 1955, respondent loaned $7,500 to appellant and another, which was to be repaid on February 14, 1955. In his answer appellant admits that he borrowed certain moneys from the respondent under terms and conditions exhibited by a written instrument. In an affidavit in opposition to respondent’s motion for summary judgment, appellant states that the written instrument is a negotiable promissory note payable to respondent’s order for $8,000 dated, executed and delivered on January 31, 1955. In his affidavit, appellant also states that he saw a photostatic copy of the note in the possession of respondent’s attorney. Appellant’s codefendant, against whom the action was severed and then discontinued, submitted an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment in which she states that she delivered to respondent a negotiable promissory note for $8,000 payable to respondent’s order and signed by appellant. No reply affidavit was submitted by respondent or on her behalf. The appeal is from an order insofar as it grants the motion for summary judgment striking out appellant’s answer, and from the judgment entered thereon. Order, insofar as appealed from, and judgment entered thereon, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. The affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion raise a triable issue of fact as to the execution and delivery of the note. Since it is claimed 'by appellant that a negotiable note was given to respondent for the money loaned, this action must await trial so that it may be established by factual proof whether a note was executed and delivered; if so, respondent should be required to produce the note for cancellation or to offer a satisfactory explanation for its nonproduction. (Yuni v. Herscoxitz, 263 App. Div, 270, affd. 289 N. Y. 548; Watkins v. Brooks, 273 [705]*705App. Div. 753; Goeske v. Taylor, 205 App. Div. 429; 85 A. L. R. 1057; 40 Am. Jur., Payment, § 69.) Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.; concur.

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

The complaint alleges that on or about January 31, 1955, respondent loaned $7,500 to appellant and another, which was to be repaid on February 14, 1955. In his answer appellant admits that he borrowed certain moneys from the respondent under terms and conditions exhibited by a written instrument. In an affidavit in opposition to respondent’s motion for summary judgment, appellant states that the written instrument is a negotiable promissory note payable to respondent’s order for $8,000 dated, executed and delivered on January 31, 1955. In his affidavit, appellant also states that he saw a photostatic copy of the note in the possession of respondent’s attorney. Appellant’s codefendant, against whom the action was severed and then discontinued, submitted an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment in which she states that she delivered to respondent a negotiable promissory note for $8,000 payable to respondent’s order and signed by appellant. No reply affidavit was submitted by respondent or on her behalf. The appeal is from an order insofar as it grants the motion for summary judgment striking out appellant’s answer, and from the judgment entered thereon. Order, insofar as appealed from, and judgment entered thereon, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. The affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion raise a triable issue of fact as to the execution and delivery of the note. Since it is claimed 'by appellant that a negotiable note was given to respondent for the money loaned, this action must await trial so that it may be established by factual proof whether a note was executed and delivered; if so, respondent should be required to produce the note for cancellation or to offer a satisfactory explanation for its nonproduction. (Yuni v. Herscoxitz, 263 App. Div, 270, affd. 289 N. Y. 548; Watkins v. Brooks, 273 [705]*705App. Div. 753; Goeske v. Taylor, 205 App. Div. 429; 85 A. L. R. 1057; 40 Am. Jur., Payment, § 69.) Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.; concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 704, 152 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trimble-v-beaudry-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack