From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shapiro v. Shorenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1990
157 A.D.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 29, 1990

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


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sum of $600,000.

The facts have been set forth in a companion appeal (Shapiro v Shorenstein, 157 A.D.2d 833 [decided herewith]).

A motion for summary judgment may not be defeated by the assertion of mere conclusory allegations in the pleadings or affidavits (see, Albert v. Glick Developers, 155 A.D.2d 569).

The existence in this record of promissory notes in the amounts of $200,000, $250,000, and $150,000, signed by the defendants on March 10, 1987, October 7, 1987, and October 14, 1987, respectively, and made payable to the plaintiff Joseph G. Shapiro, clearly document the defendants' indebtedness to the plaintiff. The defendants have presented nothing in the way of documentation to support their numerous affirmative defenses and rely instead on allegations which are wholly conclusory in nature and which additionally are inconsistent and illogical, if not totally preposterous. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the principal sum of $600,000. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Shapiro v. Shorenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1990
157 A.D.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Shapiro v. Shorenstein

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH G. SHAPIRO, Appellant, v. MAURICE SHORENSTEIN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jan 29, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

SAVINO OIL HEATING CO., INC. v. RANA MGMT

In response, the plaintiff relies solely on an affidavit of the same controller which contains conclusory and…