Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez
| Decision Date | 02 February 1977 |
| Citation | 89 Misc.2d 285,391 N.Y.S.2d 355 |
| Parties | The GRAMATAN HOME INVESTORS CORP., Successor in Interest to the Gramatan Co., Ltd. Home Investors Trust, Plaintiff. v. Louis N. LOPEZ and Barbara Lopez, Defendants. |
| Court | New York County Court |
The Plaintiff is an assignee for value of an installment loan contract executed by the Defendants and the Plaintiff's assignor. The contract, which provided for certain home repairs to be made upon Defendants' premises by the Plaintiff's assignors was the subject of an action brought by the State of New York against the assignor in Supreme Court, Albany County; the Plaintiff, assignee, was not a party to this action.
Defendants now move for summary judgment relying principally upon § 403 of the Personal Property Law, and the determination made against Plaintiff's assignor, in a matter entitled Peopole of the State of New York versus Robert Taillon, et al decided May 14, 1976 by the Honorable Robert C. Williams, a Justice of the Supreme Court in Albany County. As a result of the aforementioned Supreme Court determination, the contract between Plaintiff's assignor and the Defendants was determined to be null and void.
Relying upon § 403 of the Personal Property Law, the Defendants now aver that the Plaintiff, as assignee, is subject to the same defenses that could be asserted against its assignor. Defendants, therefore, assert that the determination made in Supreme Court declaring the contract between the Defendants and Plaintiff's assignor null and void is a valid defense to the Plaintiff's cause of action, and that by virtue of the collateral estoppel provided for in § 403 of the Personal Property Law, the Plaintiff's claim must fail as a matter of law.
The Plaintiff asserts that it was not a party to the Supreme Court action, and is therefore not bound by the judgment rendered therein. This Court disagrees with that contention. The Defendants in the instant action would have had a valid defense to an action brought by Plaintiff's assignor by virtue of the Supreme Court determination, and the Plaintiff, as assignee, pursuant to § 403 of the Personal Property Law must confront Defendant's assertion of that undisputed defense.
Both parties cite the case of Nassau Discount Corp. v. Allen, 44 Misc.2d 1007, 255 N.Y.S.2d 608, which was reversed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second...
To continue reading
Request your trial