Legal Opinion
Channel Excavators, Inc. v. Amato Trucking Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 8, 1965PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJoseph Life, J.
Motion for an order for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 is denied. The plaintiff proceeds on a paper which is a bill or statement form *430of the defendant containing the words “We owe Channel Excavators ” followed by an amount. This paper is unsigned. It is not an “ instrument for the payment of money only” as prescribed by 3213 (supra). To come within the section the instrument need not be a negotiable instrument (Louis Sherry Ice Cream Co. v. Kroggel, 42 Misc 2d 21); however, the section was designed “ to provide a speedy and effective means of securing a judgment…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Louis Sherry Ice Cream Co. v. KroggelNew York Supreme Court · 1963
- M. Gilston, Inc. v. UllmanNassau County District Court · 1965
3Cited by11 opinions
- Istituto Per Lo Sviluppo Economico Dell' Italia Meridionale v. Sperti Products, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1969
- Baker v. GundermannNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- Lopez v. PerryNew York Supreme Court · 1967
- Mike Nasti Sand Co. v. Almar Landscaping Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1968
- Orenstein v. OrensteinCivil Court of the City of New York · 1968
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.