Opinion
April 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.).
The granting of summary judgment was inappropriate because Citibank failed to establish a prima facie case that A-Leet Leasing Corp. had materially breached their loan restructuring agreement. Citibank alleges several breaches of the agreement, but the allegations lack specificity and are not substantiated with any documentary evidence (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
As a result, Pearl's six affirmative defenses and first counterclaim, which involve Citibank's obligations under the restructuring agreement and the alleged breach of its obligation to release Pearl from the mortgage, should be reinstated. The IAS Court properly found that Pearl's second counterclaim alleging fraudulent behavior was insufficient on its face for failure "to allege that Citibank knowingly made a false representation and that [Pearl] relied on that statement to its detriment".
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.