Famolaro v. Crest Offset, Inc.
Decision Date | 19 December 2005 |
Docket Number | 2005-00799. |
Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 09672,24 A.D.3d 604,807 N.Y.S.2d 387 |
Parties | JAMES FAMOLARO, Respondent, v. CREST OFFSET, INC., et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff sustained his initial burden of demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of the underlying note and guaranty executed by the defendants, the unconditional terms of repayment, and the defendants' failure to make payment (see MDJR Enters. v. LaTorre, 268 AD2d 509 [2000]; E.D.S. Sec. Sys. v. Allyn, 262 AD2d 351 [1999]; Capital Circulation Corp. v. Gallop Leasing Corp., 248 AD2d 578 [1998]). It was then incumbent upon the defendants to demonstrate by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense (see MDJR Enters. v. LaTorre, supra; Capital Circulation Corp. v. Gallop Leasing Corp., supra; Colonial Commercial Corp. v. Breskel Assoc., 238 AD2d 539 [1997]).
The Supreme Court properly determined that the plain language of the note and guaranty precluded the defendants from raising the defense of breach of the bill of sale's covenant not to compete (see E.D.S. Sec. Sys. v. Allyn, supra; Mintz v. Dallek & Zaret Assoc., 120 AD2d 654 [1986]; Raven El. Corp. v. Finkelstein, 223 AD2d 378 [1996]). Moreover, the defendants' unsupported conclusory allegations with respect to this defense were insufficient to defeat the plaintiff's motion (see Layden v. Boccio, 253 AD2d 540 [1998]; E.D.S. Sec. Sys. v. Allyn, supra; Capital Circulation Corp. v. Gallop Leasing Corp., supra).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jin Sheng He v. Chang
...v. Musheyev, 68 A.D.3d 736, 888 N.Y.S.2d 911; Quest Commercial, LLC v. Rovner, 35 A.D.3d 576, 825 N.Y.S.2d 766; Famolaro v. Crest Offset, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 604, 807 N.Y.S.2d 387; Bank of N.Y. v. Vega Tech. USA, LLC, 18 A.D.3d 678, 794 N.Y.S.2d 922). Here, the plaintiff met his prima facie bur......
-
Washington Mut. Bank v. Valencia
...68 A.D.3d 736, 736, 888 N.Y.S.2d 911; Quest Commercial, LLC v. Rovner, 35 A.D.3d 576, 576, 825 N.Y.S.2d 766; Famolaro v. Crest Offset, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 604, 605, 807 N.Y.S.2d 387; Bank of N.Y. v. Vega Tech. USA, LLC, 18 A.D.3d 678, 679, 794 N.Y.S.2d 922). The defendant raised the defense tha......
-
Rachmany v. Regev
...68 A.D.3d 736, 888 N.Y.S.2d 911;Verela v. Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 A.D.3d 574, 575, 862 N.Y.S.2d 96;Famolaro v. Crest Offset, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 604, 604–605, 807 N.Y.S.2d 387). Contrary to his contentions, the defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing the existence of a triable......
-
Gullery v. Imburgio
...68 A.D.3d 736, 888 N.Y.S.2d 911; Verela v. Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 A.D.3d 574, 575, 862 N.Y.S.2d 96; Famolaro v. Crest Offset, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 604, 604-605, 807 N.Y.S.2d 387; Hestnar v. Schetter, 284 A.D.2d 499, 500, 728 N.Y.S.2d 479). The burden then shifted to the defendant to establis......