From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Wismer

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Sep 16, 1965
48 Misc. 2d 275 (N.Y. App. Term 1965)

Opinion

September 16, 1965

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, PATRICK J. PICARIELLO, J.

Rembar Zolotar ( George Zolotar and Irving Klein of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph F. Romano and Theodore J. Zimmerman for respondent.


The defendant seasonably objected to the absence from the plaintiff's affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment, sworn to in the State of Illinois, of the authenticating certificate prescribed by CPLR 2309 (subd. [c]). Though the defect could have been cured by amendment, it was not so cured; the affidavit was, therefore, not properly before the court ( Majestic Co. v. Wender, 24 Misc.2d 1018).

While CPLR 3213 permits a plaintiff to serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint, in an action upon a judgment or instrument for the payment of money only, self-evidently the supporting papers must contain proof of the essentials of the plaintiff's cause of action. Plaintiff's moving affidavit did not show its corporate status in accordance with CPLR 3015 (subd. [b]). We regard the corporate or other legal status of a plaintiff who is not an individual as one of these essentials. The omission of proof of this essential, challenged by defendant as a defect, also was not supplied by amendment. It was, therefore, error to grant plaintiff summary judgment.

The errors in the summons were amendable irregularities and did not reach the stature of jurisdictional defects; and the defendant was neither misled nor prejudiced by them ( Creative Woodworking Co. v. Bohn, 44 Misc.2d 369; Gribbon v. Freel, 93 N.Y. 93; Barth v. Owens, 178 Misc. 628). The cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was properly denied.

The order insofar as appealed from should be modified to the extent of reversing the granting of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, with $10 costs to appellant and denying said motion with leave to renew upon proper papers, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Concur — TILZER, J.P., HECHT and HOFSTADTER, JJ.

Order modified, etc.


Summaries of

Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Wismer

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Sep 16, 1965
48 Misc. 2d 275 (N.Y. App. Term 1965)
Case details for

Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Wismer

Case Details

Full title:MERCANTILE NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, Respondent, v. HARRY WISMER, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Sep 16, 1965

Citations

48 Misc. 2d 275 (N.Y. App. Term 1965)
264 N.Y.S.2d 850

Citing Cases

TD Bank, N.A. v. Excelsior Syndication of N.Y. LLC

First, the supporting papers annexed to plaintiff's motion do not "contain proof of the essentials of the…

Port Auth. v. Wilenta Feed, Inc.

Since this Court cannot ascertain from the papers submitted the precise amount owed by defendants, it is…