From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. Colvin Motor Parts of Long Island

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 31, 1988
140 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

May 31, 1988

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In support of her motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (see, CPLR 3213), the plaintiff established her cause of action as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067-1068). "It is incontestable that plaintiff * * * prove[d] a prima facie case by proof of the note and a failure to make payments called for by its terms" (Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, 137, appeal dismissed 28 N.Y.2d 716, affd 29 N.Y.2d 617; see, Ihmels v Kahn, 126 A.D.2d 701; Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women, 113 A.D.2d 791, 792, affd 67 N.Y.2d 627; Badische Bank v Ronel Sys., 36 A.D.2d 763). Execution of the promissory note dated April 15, 1977, and the default in payment was established by the plaintiff's motion papers and was not denied by the defendant. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the defendant to come forward with proof of evidentiary facts showing the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra, at 560; Ihmels v Kahn, supra; Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women, supra, at 792). This the defendant has failed to do. There is nothing of an evidentiary nature in the record to support the defendant's bare allegation of the invalidity of the note and the plaintiff's entitlement to bring suit on it. Despite the fact that this is not a case where knowledge of the facts resides solely with the movant, the defendant submits that summary judgment should have been denied in order to provide it with an opportunity to develop documentary evidence concerning the validity of the note. The mere speculation that something might be uncovered through discovery provides no basis pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) to postpone decision on the summary judgment motion. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marshall v. Colvin Motor Parts of Long Island

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 31, 1988
140 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Marshall v. Colvin Motor Parts of Long Island

Case Details

Full title:HELEN MARSHALL, Respondent, v. COLVIN MOTOR PARTS OF LONG ISLAND, INC.…

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

Date published: May 31, 1988

Citations

140 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Pollock v. City of New York

Accepting as true the plaintiff's allegation that the city and HHC had resolved to form a joint task force in…

Jennings-Lowe v. Town of Islip

(Abraham Nat. Foods Corp. v. Mount VernonFire Ins. Co., 84 A.D.3d 1281, 924 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2d Dept 2011];…