Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

CHEMICAL BANK, Respondent, v. PIC MOTORS CORP. et al., Defendants, and AARON SIEGEL, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the opinion of Justice ARNOLD L. FEIN ( 87 A.D.2d 447), to which we but add two comments.

First, that defendants had not completed discovery did not interdict the grant of summary judgment ( Griffin v Cortland Mem. Hosp., 85 A.D.2d 837, mot for lv to app den 56 N.Y.2d 507). In particular, defendants, in opposing plaintiff's motion, failed to tender an affidavit or affidavits averring the existence, in admissible form, of proof which would present a triable issue of fact or, if hearsay, an acceptable excuse for the failure to present firsthand knowledge ( Egleston v Kalamarides, 58 N.Y.2d 682, 684; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067-1068).

Second, Special Term's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claim despite the pendency of defendant's counterclaim was not an abuse of discretion, without more, since it was not supported by a showing of merit ( M S Mercury Air Conditioning Corp. v Rodolitz, 24 A.D.2d 873, 874, affd 17 N.Y.2d 909).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG, MEYER and SIMONS concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CHEMICAL BANK v. PIC MOTORS CORP
(Mar 23, 1983)