Council Commerce Corp. v. Paschalides
| Decision Date | 22 February 1983 |
| Parties | COUNCIL COMMERCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Peter PASCHALIDES et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Marvin Buchner, P.C., Jericho, for appellant.
Before DAMIANI, J.P., and MANGANO, THOMPSON and BOYERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover on a guaranty, plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 16, 1982, which denied its motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 and (2) from so much of a further order of the same court, dated August 27, 1982, as, upon granting plaintiff's motion for reargument, adhered to its original determination.
Appeal from the order dated August 16, 1982 dismissed. This order was superseded by the order dated August 27, 1982 which granted reargument.
Order dated August 27, 1982 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, order dated August 16, 1982 vacated, motion granted, with interest thereon of 25% per annum from May 1, 1982, and matter remitted to Special Term for a determination as to legal fees, along with other costs and expenses, and for the entry of an appropriate judgment.
Plaintiff is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements.
A personal guaranty qualifies as an instrument for the payment of money only, and in light of the affidavit of nonpayment submitted along with the guaranty and its unchallenged recitation of consideration provided in exchange for the guaranty, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 (Seaman-Andwall Corp. v. Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, 295 N.Y.S.2d 752, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 617, 324 N.Y.S.2d 410, 273 N.E.2d 138; Rhodia Inc. v. Steel, 32 A.D.2d 753, 300 N.Y.S.2d 1005, Community Nat. Bank and Trust Co. v. Liberty Corp., 35 A.D.2d 925, 316 N.Y.S.2d 456). Special Term's reliance on Dubovsky & Sons v. Schwartz, 75 A.D.2d 802, 427 N.Y.S.2d 503 was misplaced. There was a dispute in that case with regard to the value of the goods sold and delivered, and there was a need for proof outside the instrument with regard thereto. In the instant action, no proof other than the instrument sued upon and the affidavit of nonpayment is needed to establish a prima facie case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sanchez
...the 45-day requirement of the CPL runs from the date of this decision, and not that of the prior decision (Council Commerce Corp. v. Paschalides, 92 A.D.2d 579, 459 N.Y.S.2d 463; Barad v. Bank of Commerce, 31 A.D.2d 809, 298 N.Y.S.2d 17; Dennis v. Stout, 24 A.D.2d 461, 260 N.Y.S.2d 1 The co......
-
Kirsh v. Michetti
...judgment is open for challenge on appeal, even if an appeal had been taken from the prior judgment. Council Commerce Corp. v. Paschalides, 92 A.D.2d 579, 459 N.Y.S.2d 463, 464 (2d Dept.1983); Mastan Co., supra, 444 N.Y.S.2d 315, 317. Since the Civil Court granted Kirsh's motion for reconsid......
- Courten v. Courten
-
Orchard Hotel, LLC v. Zhavian
...v. Munkenbeck, 162 A.D.2d 503, 504 [1990];Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Green, 95 A.D.2d 737, 737 [1983];Council Commerce Corp. v. Paschalides, 92 A.D.2d 579, 579 [1983] ). A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of its entitlement to summary judgment under CPLR 3213 by submitting p......