Cattaraugus County Bank v Brown

Annotate this Case
Cattaraugus County Bank v Brown 2014 NY Slip Op 07845 Decided on November 14, 2014 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 14, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
1119 CA 14-00636

[*1]CATTARAUGUS COUNTY BANK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v

COREY W. BROWN AND GREEN GABLE VILLAGE, LIMITED, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Deborah A. Chimes, J.), entered July 22, 2013. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.



GOODELL & RANKIN, JAMESTOWN (KIMBERLY M. THRUN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL GOLDMAN, JAMESTOWN, FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.



It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order that denied its motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213. We reverse. Plaintiff met its initial burden by submitting the promissory note, the unconditional guarantee of defendant Green Gable Village, Limited, and evidence of defendant Corey W. Brown's default on the note (see Counsel Fin. Servs., LLC v David McQuade Leibowitz, P.C., 67 AD3d 1483, 1484; LaMar v Vasile [appeal No. 4], 49 AD3d 1218, 1219), and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants' conclusory, unsubstantiated and irrelevant allegations that the promissory note was to be paid in full by the purchaser of the real property securing the note are insufficient to defeat the motion (see generally Quadrant Mgt. Inc. v Hecker, 102 AD3d 410, 410-411).

Entered: November 14, 2014

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.