From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gillespie v. Perrone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted September 11, 2000

October 10, 2000.

In an action to recover payment on certain promissory notes, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated October 1, 19 99, as denied that branch of their motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Lazzaro Gregory, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Randall Lazzaro of counsel), for appellants.

Joseph Dubowski, Douglaston, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.

The plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. The plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the defendants executed the subject promissory notes and failed to make payments in accordance with the terms thereof (see, Bank of New York v. Sterlington Common Assocs., 235 A.D.2d 448; Gallagher v. Kazmierczuk, 245 A.D.2d 418; Colonial Commercial Corp. v. Breskel Assocs., 238 A.D.2d 539; Moezinia v. Baroukhian, 247 A.D.2d 452). The defendants' conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of fraud was insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (see, Bank of New York v. Sterlington Common Assocs., supra; Gallagher v. Kazmierczuk, supra; Colonial Commercial Corp. v. Breskel Assocs., supra; Moezinia v. Baroukhian, supra).

To the extent that the Supreme Court based its decision on the lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, we note that the defendants successfully raised that defense in a related but separate action. However, they did not claim lack of personal jurisdiction in the instant action and failed to move to dismiss on that ground within 60 days of their answer. Therefore, the defendants waived that defense (see, CPLR 3211[e]; Amerasia Bank v. Saiko Enters., 263 A.D.2d 519).


Summaries of

Gillespie v. Perrone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Gillespie v. Perrone

Case Details

Full title:JOHN GILLESPIE, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MARTIN PERRONE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

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

Date published: Oct 10, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 694

Citing Cases

Dimond v. Verdon

Almost three months after serving their answer, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground…