Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Marielle Textile, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Marielle Textile, Inc.

39 A.D.3d 210, 831 N.Y.S.2d 708

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 3, 2007·Published

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered May 18, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although we find, contrary to the trial court, that a proper foundation was laid for the admission of a microfiche copy of the loan application at issue (see Briar Hill Apts. Co. v Teperman, 165 AD2d 519, 521-522 [1991]; Berrios v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 162 AD2d 365 [1990]), we affirm the dismissal of the complaint based on the trial court’s finding of fact that the document sued upon is illegible, necessarily meaning that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff a continuance to secure another witness, since, under the circumstances, the proposed testimony would have been immaterial (see Armetta v General Motors Corp., 158 AD2d 284, 286 [1990]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Malone, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered May 18, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although we find, contrary to the trial court, that a proper foundation was laid for the admission of a microfiche copy of the loan application at issue (see Briar Hill Apts. Co. v Teperman, 165 AD2d 519, 521-522 [1991]; Berrios v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 162 AD2d 365 [1990]), we affirm the dismissal of the complaint based on the trial court’s finding of fact that the document sued upon is illegible, necessarily meaning that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff a continuance to secure another witness, since, under the circumstances, the proposed testimony would have been immaterial (see Armetta v General Motors Corp., 158 AD2d 284, 286 [1990]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Marielle Textile, Inc., 39 A.D.3d 210, 831 N.Y.S.2d 708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

39 A.D.3d 210 (Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Marielle Textile, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related