Federal Deposit Insurance v. 7 A.M. to 11 P.M. Delicatessen, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Gamut-Mitchell, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Archer Capital Fund v. Eagle Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Archer Capital Fund, L.P. v. Gel, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- North Fork Bank Corp. v. Graphic Forms Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover on a guaranty of payment, the defendant Joseph Sauerhoff appeals from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, (Mastro, J.), dated March 3, 1997, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 as against him and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated July 21, 1997, as is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $120,000. The appellant’s notice of appeal from the order dated March 3, 1997, is also deemed a notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5512 [a]).
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The plaintiff sustained its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of the underlying note, the guaranty, and the failure to make payment in accordance with their terms (see, CPLR 3213; Naugatuck Sav. Bank v Gross, 214 AD2d 549). It was thus incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a genuine triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense. Here, the appellant’s unsupported conclusory allegations were insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs motion (see, Naugatuck Sav. Bank v Gross, supra;
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.