From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Apple Bank for Savings v. Charles Offset Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 24, 1989

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


Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendant entered into two leases of equipment with the plaintiff's assignor. Each of the agreements stated, inter alia, that the lessor made no warranties, that the unfitness of the equipment would not relieve the defendant lessee of the obligation to pay under the lease, and if the lease were assigned by the lessor, the assignee would not assume any of the duties or obligations of the lessor under the lease. The agreements also contained merger clauses. Before the leases were signed, the defendant had entered into purchase agreements for the equipment with the manufacturer, but the lessor actually purchased the equipment. However, the manufacturer made certain warranties to the defendant. Two days after the leases were signed, the lessor assigned the leases to the plaintiff.

The defendant performed under the agreements for 18 months. It then stopped making payments, claiming the equipment was unsuitable for the particular purpose for which it was leased.

The plaintiff sued and the defendant asserted defenses of breach of express and implied warranties made by the manufacturer in the purchase agreements. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff under UCC 9-206 (1).

The defendant has not adequately controverted the plaintiff's allegations that the plaintiff had no knowledge of any defenses to the leases when it took the assignments. By making mere allegations and unsubstantiated assertions, the defendant has failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The plaintiff has shown that it took the assignment in good faith, for value, and without notice (see, UCC 3-302). As such, under UCC 9-206 (1), the defendant is limited to real defenses against the plaintiff as enumerated in UCC 3-305 (2), which defenses have not been raised. Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff (see, Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Kassel, 72 A.D.2d 787). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Apple Bank for Savings v. Charles Offset Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Apple Bank for Savings v. Charles Offset Co.

Case Details

Full title:APPLE BANK FOR SAVINGS, Respondent, v. CHARLES OFFSET COMPANY, INC.…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
540 N.Y.S.2d 299