From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perpignan v. First Franklin Financial Corp..

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 27, 2011
87 A.D.3d 1117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-09-27

Tony PERPIGNAN, appellant,v.FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., respondent.


Tony Perpignan, Baldwin, N.Y., appellant pro se.Bryan Cave, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Suzanne M. Berger and Carolyn K. Brooks Rincon of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to discharge a note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated July 7, 2009, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks the discharge of his obligation under a promissory note, on the ground that the note was materially altered after he executed it. However, the plaintiff failed to allege any manner in which the note was materially altered ( see UCC 3–407 , 3–202; cf. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Allen, 232 A.D.2d 80, 85–86, 662 N.Y.S.2d 8; NAB Asset Venture III v. Stanley Simon Diamonds, Inc., 236 A.D.2d 291, 653 N.Y.S.2d 350; Modern Indus. Bank v. Woodman, 263 App.Div. 1019, 1020, 33 N.Y.S.2d 972). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

SKELOS, J.P., ENG, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Perpignan v. First Franklin Financial Corp..

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 27, 2011
87 A.D.3d 1117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Perpignan v. First Franklin Financial Corp..

Case Details

Full title:Tony PERPIGNAN, appellant,v.FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 27, 2011

Citations

87 A.D.3d 1117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 6828
929 N.Y.S.2d 882