Legal Opinion

North American Pneumatic Tube Co. v. Mishkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 15, 1994PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment based on proof of the existence of the promissory note and nonpayment (see, Alicanto v Woolverton, 142 AD2d 703, lv denied 73 NY2d 702; Grasso v Shutts Agency, 132 AD2d 768, appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 797). The parol evidence proffered by defendant was an impermissible attempt to alter the express terms of that unambiguous note and was insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see, Kornfeld v NRX Technologies, 93 AD2d 772, affd 62 NY2d 686; Alicanto v Woolverton, supra;…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kornfeld v. NRX Technologies, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Kornfeld v. NRX Technologies, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  3. Grasso v. John I. Shutts Agency, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  4. Alicanto, S. A. v. WoolvertonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
  5. Technical Tape, Inc. v. Spray-Tuck, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Saulsbury v. DurfeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API