P.D.J. Corp v. Bansh Properties, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 February 1969
• Citation: P.D.J. Corp v. Bansh Properties, Inc., 298 N.Y.S.2d 988, 23 N.Y.2d 971, 246 N.E.2d 749 (N.Y. 1969)
• Parties: , 246 N.E.2d 749 P.D.J. CORPORATION, Respondent, v. BANSH PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 988

298 N.Y.S.2d 988

23 N.Y.2d 971, 246 N.E.2d 749

P.D.J. CORPORATION, Respondent, v. BANSH PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 20, 1969.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 29 A.D.2d 927, 289 N.Y.S.2d 32.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City (Carl A. Schwarz, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Roseman, Colin, Kaye, Petschek, Freund & Emil, New York City (Gerald Walpin, Robert W. Gottlieb, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Action was brought on a $25,000 note and on a $20,000 note allegedly given to plaintiff by defendant.

The plaintiff made a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213. Copies of the notes were attached to the plaintiff's motion papers, and defendant did not deny that it executed and delivered the notes. The defendant contended that the $25,000 note was merely a sham and engineered to show a receivable on the books of the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that there was an agreement by defendant to destroy the $20,000 note in lieu of services performed by defendant's president for the plaintiff or its president and in consideration for the purchase of certain jewelry for the wife of the president of the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Samuel M. Gold, J., entered an order denying the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division entered an order April 18, 1968 which reversed on the law the order of the Special Term and granted the motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division held that conclusory statement of defendant that the $25,000 note was merely a sham was insufficient in view of fact that note...