From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

N M Plumbing Heating v. Cenacle Prop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 1991
171 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 4, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the plaintiff that the promissory note sued on was an instrument for the payment of money only, within the meaning of CPLR 3213 (see, Gittleson v Dempster, 148 A.D.2d 578, 579; Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, 137, affd 29 N.Y.2d 617). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants' fraudulent inducement claim does raise a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment relief (see, Millerton Agway Coop. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 N.Y.2d 57; GTE Automatic Elec. v Martin's Inc., 127 A.D.2d 545, 546; cf., Citibank v Plapinger, 66 N.Y.2d 90). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

N M Plumbing Heating v. Cenacle Prop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 1991
171 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

N M Plumbing Heating v. Cenacle Prop

Case Details

Full title:N M PLUMBING HEATING CORP., Appellant, v. CENACLE PROPERTIES OF L.I.…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 133

Citing Cases

ROSMA DEV. v THE SOUND BEYOND ELEC. CORP.

Where, as here, the defendant, in opposition to the motion, raises claims of fraudulent inducement this, in…

Comforce Telecom v. Spears Holding

However, given the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that there was a triable…