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

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

DecidedApril 3, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 210 (Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Marielle Textile, 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 210, 831 N.Y.S.2d 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-na-v-marielle-textile-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack