Winchester Globe Trust Co. v. First Secured Capital Corp.

288 A.D.2d 381, 734 N.Y.S.2d 82, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11239
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 19, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 381 (Winchester Globe Trust Co. v. First Secured Capital Corp.) 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
Winchester Globe Trust Co. v. First Secured Capital Corp., 288 A.D.2d 381, 734 N.Y.S.2d 82, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action, in effect, to permanently enjoin the defendants from violating the terms of a loan agreement, the defendant First Secured Capital Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated June 13, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On November 28, 1997, a loan agreement was executed by the plaintiff and the defendant First Secured Capital Corporation (hereinafter First Secured). After the plaintiff commenced this action seeking, in effect, to permanently enjoin the defendants from violating the terms of the loan agreement, First Secured moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that the loan contemplated by the November 28, 1997, agreement was never made, and that the loans which the plaintiff made to it were separate, independent transactions, governed by their own agreements. The plaintiff asserts that each loan it made to First Secured was made pursuant to the November 28, 1997, agreement.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the motion for summary judgment, as there are triable issues of fact concerning whether the parties intended the terms of the November 28, 1997, loan [382]*382agreement to govern all of the loans made by the plaintiff to First Secured (see, Siegel v Golub, 286 AD2d 489; Riccardelli v Crawford, 237 AD2d 273). Bracken, P. J., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Geothermal Energy Corp. v. Caithness Corp.
34 A.D.3d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 381, 734 N.Y.S.2d 82, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winchester-globe-trust-co-v-first-secured-capital-corp-nyappdiv-2001.