Opinion
February 14, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.).
In opposition to plaintiff's CPLR 3213 motion, the individual defendant asserted that his corporation's 1984 $1,275,000 promissory note was merely an accommodation, to be discharged upon plaintiff's receipt of substitute notes from the actual recipients of the loan proceeds, investors who used the corporate defendant's financial management services. Plaintiff did in fact receive and accept the substitute notes aggregating $956,250 from some of these investors; four others, however, made no payments, leaving a balance of $318,750. In the circumstances presented these assertions were sufficient to raise factual issues as to the defense of payment.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.