Opinion
December 3, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).
It is well settled that a defense based upon documentary evidence is not dispositive "unless the documents submitted resolve all of the factual issues as a matter of law" (Lake Placid Vil. v Lake Placid Main St. Corp., 90 A.D.2d 873, 874). Such was achieved by defendant's documentary evidence establishing that payments were made in excess of the debt owed for merchandise sold to it by plaintiff's predecessor in interest. Plaintiff acknowledges the payments, but argues that they may have been loans extended to defendant by plaintiff's predecessor. However, the affidavit of defendant's principal established that payment was made to reduce the debts shown in the memorandum invoices on which the action is based. This affidavit was used not to establish the fact of the payments, essentially conceded, but merely to demonstrate the connecting link between the payments and the only debt owed (see, Dumont v Raymond, 49 N.Y.S.2d 865, 867, affd 269 App. Div. 592). Given plaintiff's failure to come forward with evidentiary facts tending to substantiate its conclusory allegations concerning the purpose of these payments, sufficient was shown to warrant dismissal of the action on the basis of documentary evidence.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.