Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. v. O'Neill

11 A.D.3d 327, 783 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12213
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 19, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 327 (Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. v. O'Neill) 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
Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. v. O'Neill, 11 A.D.3d 327, 783 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about July 18, 2003, which granted plaintiff s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The procedure for accelerated judgment under CPLR 3213 is appropriate where plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by virtue of a note and a failure to make payments called for therein (DDS Partners v Celenza, 6 AD3d 347, 348 [2004]). The agreement upon which this motion was brought contains an unequivocal and unconditional promise by defendant to repay plaintiff the funds loaned to him. Plaintiffs claim rests entirely on defendant’s failure to make the first installment in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and there is no need to refer to any extrinsic facts to prove the case. Despite defendant’s assertions to the contrary, the fact that the agreement was secured by stock does not alter the essential character of the agreement as an instrument for payment of money only (Solanki v Pandya, 269 AD2d 189 [2000]).

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff breached the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, depriving him of the benefit of his bargain, is similarly unavailing. Defendant bargained for a loan of $1 million, which he concededly received. Extrinsic matters such as dealings between plaintiff and QoS Networks Limited have no bearing on the relevant issues (see Valencia Sportswear v D.S.G. Enters., 237 AD2d 171 [1997]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Jefferson St. Capital LLC v. Inventel.TV LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 30894(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Finch Prop. Holdings I, LLP v. Blumenfeld
2025 NY Slip Op 00190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Hainan Haitou No.1 Inv. Partnership (L.P.) v. Sure Idea Ltd.
2024 NY Slip Op 31248(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Mahne v. Cell Source, Inc.
160 N.Y.S.3d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Mehta v. Mehta
2019 NY Slip Op 111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Leiser v. System D Restaurant Holdings, Inc.
32 Misc. 3d 374 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Skilled Investors, Inc. v. Bank Julius Baer & Co.
62 A.D.3d 424 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
QOS Networks Ltd. v. Warburg, Pincus & Co.
669 S.E.2d 536 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
Bronsnick v. Brisman
30 A.D.3d 224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Warburg, Pincus & Co. v. QoS Network Ltd.
25 A.D.3d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. v. Keane
22 A.D.3d 321 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 A.D.3d 327, 783 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warburg-pincus-equity-partners-lp-v-oneill-nyappdiv-2004.