Legal Opinion
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Friedland
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 20, 1991No. 88 Civ. 2915 (RPP)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT P. PATTERSON, Jr., District Judge.
Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) moves pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment in the amount of the unpaid balance of principal and interest due under a note for a principal amount of $300,000.00 and attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements.
For the reasons stated below, the motion for summary judgment is granted.
BACKGROUND
On May 10, 1984, defendant Gary Fried-land (“Friedland”) executed a promissory note in the principal amount of $300,000.00, payable on May 10, 1986. He…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Meiri v. DaconCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Langley v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Hoover-Morris Enterprises, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cardente v. Fleet Bank of Maine, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 1992
- Lassiter v. Resolution Trust Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Schlesinger Management Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994