Siren Realty Corp. v. Biltmore Productions Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1966 |
| Citation | 27 A.D.2d 519,275 N.Y.S.2d 188 |
| Parties | SIREN REALTY CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BILTMORE PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D. H. Shapiro, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
H. T. Lindauer, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before BREITEL, J.P., and STEVENS, STEUER, CAPOZZOLI and WITMER, JJ.
Order, entered September 2, 1966, denying the motion of plaintiff-appellant for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and the motion is granted.
Plaintiff mortgagee brought suit to foreclose a purchase money first mortgage upon property owned by defendant mortgagor. Mortgagor admits that it has defaulted in payments of principal, interest and real estate taxes but claims that oral agreements between the parties bar this action. Allegedly, the mortgagee agreed not to foreclose the mortgage until such time as the property was condemned if the mortgagor was financially unable to meet the payments. The purported consideration for this promise was the mortgagor's agreement to continue to use the property for the production of motion pictures, plays, and television shows.
The affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion by the president of the corporate mortgagor is conclusory and does little more than restate its pleadings. Triable issues of fact are not established merely by repeating the allegations of the pleadings (Pribyl v. Van Loan & Co., Inc., 261 App.Div. 503, 504, 26 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2, affd. 287 N.Y. 749, 40 N.E.2d 36). Beyond that, it is not clear when the parties entered into the oral agreements. The answer, however, suggests that they were contemporaneous to the execution of the mortgage and, as such, may not now be raised to vary the terms of the written agreement (see Mitchill v. Lath, 247 N.Y. 377, 381--382, 160 N.E. 646, 647--648, 68 A.L.R. 239).
Appeal from order entered on September 2, 1966, denying plaintiff's motion to modify defendant's demand for a bill of particulars, dismissed, as academic, without costs or disbursements. No opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indig v. Finkelstein
...by reference of the allegations contained in pleadings or bills of particulars, verified or unverified (Siren Realty Corp. v. Biltmore Prods. Corp., 27 A.D.2d 519 *, 275 N.Y.S.2d 188; Twigg v. Twigg, 117 Misc. 154, 191 N.Y.S. 781, affd. 202 App.Div. 729, 193 N.Y.S. 956; Greenberg v. Ughetto......
-
Indig v. Finkelstein
...Pribyl v. Van Loan & Co., 261 App.Div. 503, 504, 26 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2, affd. 287 N.Y. 749, 40 N.E.2d 36; Siren Realty Corp. v. Biltmore Productions Corp., 27 A.D.2d 519, 275 N.Y.S.2d 188; Iannarelli v. Carvel Stores, 18 Misc.2d 930, 187 N.Y.S.2d All concur except CAPOZZOLI and BENJAMIN J. RABIN......
-
S. J. Capelin Associates, Inc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp.
...language of the complaint. Such does not create any genuine issue of fact requiring a trial. (See Siren Realty Corp. v. Biltmore Productions Corp., 27 A.D.2d 519, 275 N.Y.S.2d 188.) Certainly, plaintiff could have come forth with some evidentiary showing to establish the existence of trade ......
-
Central State Bank v. American Appraisal Co.
...cases cited; Aetna Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, 33 A.D.2d 551, 304 N.Y.S.2d 742; Siren Realty Corp. v. Biltmore Productions Corp., 27 A.D.2d 519, 275 N.Y.S.2d 188. ...