Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MERLE A. HARVEY AND DIANE F. HARVEY, PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS, v. RANDY AGLE AND AMY AGLE, DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting plaintiffs' motion insofar as it sought summary judgment on the promissory note in the amount of $75,000 and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs, as limited by their brief, contend on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying in its entirety their motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 with respect to two promissory notes, and instead should have granted the motion insofar as it sought summary judgment on one of the promissory notes, in the amount of $75,000. We agree, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Plaintiffs met their initial burden by submitting the subject note, which contained a clause that accelerated the balance in the event that defendants defaulted, and by submitting evidence that defendants failed to make a required, biannual interest payment by the June 21, 2012 deadline (see Sandu v. Sandu, 94 AD3d 1545, 1546; Kehoe v. Abate, 62 AD3d 1178, 1180). In opposition thereto, defendants failed to “come forward with evidentiary proof showing the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense of the note” (Judarl v. Cycletech, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 736, 737; see Ring v. Jones, 13 AD3d 1078, 1078). Although “knowledgeable acceptance of late payments over an extended period of time ․ establishes the necessary elements to constitute a waiver of the right to insist upon timely payments” (Snide v. Larrow, 93 A.D.2d 959, 959, affd 62 N.Y.2d 633; see Madison Ave. Leasehold, LLC v Madison Bentley Assoc. LLC, 30 AD3d 1, 6, affd 8 NY3d 59, rearg. denied 8 NY3d 867), defendants established, at most, that they had made only two prior untimely payments on the subject note. Evidence that plaintiffs had routinely accepted untimely monthly payments on a second promissory note representing a separate obligation between the parties does not compel a different result.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 13–01350
Decided: March 21, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)