From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aranoff v. Lipskar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 3, 2000
269 A.D.2d 124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 3, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about June 10, 1999, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously reversed, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $40,000 with interest from December 23, 1996.

Allan R. Freedman, for plaintiff-appellant.

David Jaroslawicz, for defendants-respondents.

SULLIVAN, J.P., NARDELLI, RUBIN, ANDRIAS, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


In this action, plaintiff asserted that defendants asked him to advance $40,000 to HTT International, Inc. (HTT), a company in which their recently deceased brother was a principal. It is uncontroverted that each defendant signed a promissory note making him personally liable for the loan. As proof that the funds were in fact disbursed, plaintiff produced documentation evidencing a wire transfer in the sum of $40,000 to HTT.

Only defendant Sholom Lipskar appeared in opposition to the motion. He acknowledged that he signed the note and that he did so in contemplation of a $40,000 loan to assist the business of his deceased brother. Nevertheless, he denied liability because of his claim that "the $40,000 was never given to me and the claim by [plaintiff] is fraudulent."

Defendant's vague allegations failed to sufficiently demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact concerning his liability on the note (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562;Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065). A fortiori, no question of fact existed with regard to defendant Mendel Lipskar, who failed to submit opposition to the motion. Accordingly, Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Aranoff v. Lipskar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 3, 2000
269 A.D.2d 124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Aranoff v. Lipskar

Case Details

Full title:TERRY D. ARANOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MENDEL LIPSKAR, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 3, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 57

Citing Cases

Gurewitsch v. Fawer

Promissory notes qualify for CPLR 3213 treatment. (SeeAranoff v Lipskar , 269 AD2d 124, 124-125 [1st Dept…

GLD Sponsor Member, LLC v. BN Holdings Tr.

Promissory notes and unconditional guarantees of the payment of money, like those relied on by plaintiff…