Legal Opinion
Cardella v. Giancola
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided September 9, 2002PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*619A note required the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the principal sum of $155,000 in full by May 31, 1994. The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proving the existence of the subject note and nonpayment according to its terms (see Gregorio v Gregorio, 234 AD2d 512). The burden was therefore on the defendants to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Neuhaus v McGovern, 293 AD2d 727, 728; Gregorio v Gregorio, supra).
Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to establish that they made a valid tender in August 1994…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Banco do Estado de Sao Paulo S.A. v. Mendes Junior International Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Gregorio v. GregorioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- National Savings Bank v. HartmannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Jeffrey Towers, Inc. v. StrausAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969
- Neuhaus v. McGovernAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gamman v. SilvermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- New York Community Bank v. FesslerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Excel Capital Group Corp. v. 225 Ross St. Realty, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018