Verela v. Citrus Lake Development, Inc., 2007-06770
| Citation | 862 N.Y.S.2d 96,53 A.D.3d 574,2008 NY Slip Op 6292 |
| Decision Date | 15 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-06770,2007-06770 |
| Parties | CLAUDE VERELA, Respondent, v. CITRUS LAKE DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing the existence of a note and guaranty and the defendants' failure to make payments according to their terms (see Famolaro v Crest Offset, Inc., 24 AD3d 604, 604-605 [2005]; Hestnar v Schetter, 284 AD2d 499, 500 [2001]; Kowalski Enters. v Sem Intl., 250 AD2d 648 [1998]; Haselnuss v Delta Testing Labs., 249 AD2d 509 [1998]). "The burden then shifted to the defendant[s] to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense" (Quest Commercial, LLC v Rovner, 35 AD3d 576 [2006]; see Kowalski Enters. v Sem Intl., 250 AD2d at 648). The defendants' conclusory and unsupported assertion that no consideration was given at the time the note and guaranty were executed was insufficient to defeat the plaintiff's motion (see Hestnar v Schetter, 284 AD2d at 500; MDJR Enters. v LaTorre, 268 AD2d 509, 510 [2000]; J.A. Grammas Assoc., Architectural & Eng'g Servs. v Ehrlich, 229 AD2d 517 [1996]). The defendants' further assertion that they believed the note and guaranty did not constitute a loan but instead memorialized an agreement between the parties regarding an alleged land development project in Florida was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The assertion was vague, unsubstantiated, and conclusory and, indeed, belied by the fact that the defendants made the interest-only payments provided for in the note for almost one year prior to their default thereon, thus demonstrating their intent that the note was valid and effective (see Thomson v Rubenstein, 31 AD3d 434, 436 [2006]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Holler
...2014] ; Moweta v. Citywide Home Improvements of Queens, 267 A.D.2d 438, 700 N.Y.S.2d 845 [2d Dept 1999] ; Verela v. Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 A.D.3d 574, 862 N.Y.S.2d 96 [2d Dept 2008] ; Wilmington Trust Co. v. Hurtado, 48 Misc.3d 1201[A], 18 NYS3d 582 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2015] ; Wells......
-
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Hurtado
...; Moweta v. Citywide Home Improvements of Queens, Inc., 267 A.D.2d 438, 700 N.Y.S.2d 845 [2d Dept 1999] ; Verela v. Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 AD3d 574, 862 N.Y.S.2d 96 [2d Dept 2008] ; Paramount Ins. Co. v. Brown, 205 A.D.2d 464, 613 N.Y.S.2d 910 [1st Dept 1994] ). The court finds that the......
-
Kaygreen Realty Co., LLC v. IG Second Generation Partners, L.P.
...and conclusory allegations which were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see 78 A.D.3d 1015Verela v. Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 A.D.3d 574, 575, 862 N.Y.S.2d 96; Quest Commercial, LLC v. Rovner, 35 A.D.3d 576, 577, 825 N.Y.S.2d 766). However, Kaygreen failed to satisfy its prim......
-
Jin Sheng He v. Chang
...A.D.3d 1022, 905 N.Y.S.2d 221; Superior Fid. Assur., Ltd. v. Schwartz, 69 A.D.3d 924, 893 N.Y.S.2d 256; Verela v. Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 A.D.3d 574, 575, 862 N.Y.S.2d 96; Levien v. Allen, 52 A.D.3d 578, 860 N.Y.S.2d 174; Anand v. Wilson, 32 A.D.3d 808, 821 N.Y.S.2d 130). Once the plaint......