P.D.J. Corp v. Bansh Properties, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1969 |
| Citation | 23 N.Y.2d 971,298 N.Y.S.2d 988,246 N.E.2d 749 |
| 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 |
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 recited 'value received' and in view of evidence presented by plaintiff as to the consideration therefor, and that there was no satisfactory evidentiary showing of agreement by plaintiff to destroy the $20,000 note, the rendition of particular services by defendant, or of alleged purchase and gift of jewelry by defendant for wife of president of plaintiff.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that numerous triable issues of fact existed requiring reversal of the order of the Appellate Division. The plaintiff contended in the Court of Appeals that the Appellate Division correctly granted summary judgment to plaintiff on the notes concededly executed by defendant, since defendant's alleged defenses were sham,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carvel Corp. v. Rait
...Greenhouse, 26 N.Y.2d 255, 259 [309 N.Y.S.2d 341, 257 N.E.2d 890]; P.D.J. Corp. v. Bansh Props., 29 AD2d 927 affd 23 NY2d 971, [298 N.Y.S.2d 988, 246 N.E.2d 749]; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., p 3212.05c, esp. p. 32-142.36; 6 Carmody-Wait, N.Y. Prac. [2d ed], § 39.29). Thus, it is......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Herald Square Fabrics Corp.
...(e. g., Ehrlich v. American Moninger Greenhouse, 26 N.Y.2d 255, 259 P.D.J. Corp. v. Bansh Props., 29 A.D.2d 927, 289 N.Y.S.2d 32, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 971 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., p 3212.05c, esp. p. 32-142.36; 6 Carmody-Wait, N.Y.Prac. § 39.29). Thus, it is not enough for the opp......
-
Friedkin v. Harry Walker, Inc.
...26 N.Y.2d 255, 309 N.Y.S.2d 341, 257 N.E.2d 890; P.D.J. Corp. v. Bansh Props., 29 A.D. 927, 289 N.Y.S.2d 32, aff'd.23 N.Y.2d 971, 298 N.Y.S.2d 988, 246 N.E.2d 749; Bank of New York v. Spitzer, 43 A.D.2d 105, 349 N.Y.S.2d 747). Where no significant doubt is raised regarding the existence of ......
-
Fuchs v. MiCAD Systems, Inc.
...309 N.Y.S.2d 341, 257 N.E.2d 890; see also, P.D.J. Corp. v. Bansh Properties Inc., 29 A.D.2d 927, 289 N.Y.S.2d 32, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 971, 298 N.Y.S.2d 988, 246 N.E.2d 749.) Taylor's claims of lack of consideration consist of nothing more than bare statements that he "doesn't know" or "has not......