From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wall Street Clearing Co. v. Ainbinder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 28, 1995
212 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 28, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).


The claims and factual allegations asserted by defendant in support of the instant motion are the same as those raised and rejected in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint in 1989 and in defendant's motion in 1992 to vacate the judgment. Moreover, were the Court to consider the arguments on the merits, it is well settled that the threatened exercise of a legal right cannot constitute evidence of duress (Edison Stone Corp. v. 42nd St. Dev. Corp., 145 A.D.2d 249, 254). In this case, defendant made no demonstration that plaintiff lacked the absolute right to withdraw its agreement to indemnify his trading activities at any time it chose to do so. Moreover, defendant's remaining allegations, even if true, have no legal significance in terms of the clear allocation of risk he assumed in signing the note. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the finding, made by three IAS Court Justices, that plaintiff made out a prima facie case of entitlement to payment on the note, and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition thereto (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Rattet Liebman, 182 A.D.2d 541, 542).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Wall Street Clearing Co. v. Ainbinder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 28, 1995
212 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Wall Street Clearing Co. v. Ainbinder

Case Details

Full title:WALL STREET CLEARING CO., Respondent, v. ROBERT AINBINDER, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 28, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 213

Citing Cases

Wujin Nanxiashu Secant Factory v. Ti-Well International Corp.

Ti-Well has failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding its purported duress defense to the note and…

Spitzer v. Ferran

(Wujin Nanxiashu Secant Factory v Ti-Well Intl. Corp., 14 AD3d 352, 352-353; Matter of Guttenplan, 222 AD2d…