Tag: CPLR 3213

Banco Popular North America v. Victory Taxi Management, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 381 (2004): Establishing a Triable Issue of Fact in Forgery Claims

Banco Popular North America v. Victory Taxi Management, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 381 (2004)

A party opposing summary judgment on grounds of forgery must provide more than a bald assertion; they must offer factual assertions and demonstrate conduct consistent with a denial of the signature’s genuineness.

Summary

Banco Popular sued Victory Taxi and Jafa Albaz to recover monies owed on defaulted vehicle retail installment contracts. Albaz claimed her signature on the contracts was forged. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Banco Popular, finding Albaz’s affidavit and an unsworn handwriting expert report insufficient to create a factual issue. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a mere assertion of forgery is insufficient to defeat summary judgment; factual assertions supporting the claim and consistent pre-litigation conduct are required. The expert’s report was inadmissible and inconclusive.

Facts

Victory Taxi purchased 14 taxicabs with financing from Banco Popular. Victory defaulted on the loans. Banco Popular sued Victory and Albaz, alleging Albaz cosigned 13 of the 14 contracts. Albaz claimed forgery, submitting an affidavit and a handwriting expert’s report based on facsimile copies of the contracts.

Procedural History

Banco Popular moved for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Supreme Court granted the motion. Albaz moved to reargue and renew, submitting a sworn affidavit from her expert based on original documents. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether Albaz presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the authenticity of her signatures on the retail installment contracts, thereby defeating Banco Popular’s motion for summary judgment.

Holding

No, because Albaz’s affidavit contained only a bald assertion of forgery without supporting factual assertions or evidence of conduct consistent with denying the signature’s validity. Furthermore, the expert’s initial report was inadmissible, and the subsequent affidavit was inconclusive.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that CPLR 3213 provides a speedy means for resolving presumptively meritorious claims. To defeat a CPLR 3213 motion, a defendant must offer evidentiary proof to raise a triable issue of fact. The court stated that “[A]verments merely stating conclusions, of fact or of law, are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Something more than a bald assertion of forgery is needed to create an issue of fact. The court found Albaz’s affidavit inadequate because it lacked factual support and did not demonstrate that her pre-litigation conduct aligned with a denial of genuineness. Regarding the expert testimony, the court noted that the initial report was inadmissible because it was unsworn. The subsequent affidavit was also insufficient because the expert’s opinion was inconclusive, stating he could not determine whether Albaz signed the documents. The court reasoned that, “where an expert is used to counter the moving party’s prima facie proof, the expert opinion must be in admissible form and state with reasonable professional certainty that the signature at issue is not authentic.” Because Albaz failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the authenticity of the signatures, Banco Popular’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment remained unchallenged.

February 19, 2004
Interman Industrial Products, Ltd. v. R. S. M. Electron Power, Inc., 37 N.Y.2d 151 (1975): Availability of Summary Judgment for Accounts Stated

Interman Industrial Products, Ltd. v. R. S. M. Electron Power, Inc., 37 N.Y.2d 151 (1975)

An account stated, unsupported by a written document subscribed by the party to be charged, does not constitute “an instrument for the payment of money only” under CPLR 3213, and therefore does not entitle the moving party to accelerated summary judgment.

Summary

Interman sued R.S.M. to recover payment for silicon slices allegedly delivered pursuant to purchase orders. Interman moved for summary judgment under CPLR 3213, arguing that monthly statements of account constituted instruments for the payment of money only. R.S.M. disputed the quantities and prices of the goods. The Court of Appeals held that an account stated, without a written agreement signed by the defendant, is not an instrument for the payment of money only, and therefore does not qualify for the accelerated summary judgment procedure under CPLR 3213. The court reasoned that CPLR 3213 requires an explicit acknowledgement of indebtedness in a subscribed document to provide a speedy judgment.

Facts

Interman, a silicon material supplier, claimed it delivered silicon slices to R.S.M., a transistor manufacturer, based on purchase orders from April to August 1973. Interman alleged the agreed value was $40,839.94. Interman sent monthly statements of account to R.S.M., requesting notification of any discrepancies. R.S.M. received the statements but allegedly disputed the quantities and pricing, claiming Interman unilaterally raised prices without approval. R.S.M. issued a check for $8,693.15 but stopped payment, citing contract violations, while Interman claimed the check was stopped due to insufficient funds.

Procedural History

Interman served a summons, affidavit, and notice of motion, seeking accelerated summary judgment under CPLR 3213 based on the accounts stated. Special Term denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that an account stated is not an instrument for the payment of money only under CPLR 3213. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether an account stated, unsupported by any written document subscribed by the party to be charged, constitutes “an instrument for the payment of money only” entitling the moving party to accelerated summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213?

Holding

No, because an account stated, without a written document subscribed by the defendant, does not constitute “an instrument for the payment of money only” as required by CPLR 3213.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that CPLR 3213 is designed for speedy judgment on presumptively meritorious claims where a formal complaint is superfluous. To qualify, the action must be based on an “instrument for the payment of money only.” The court noted the lack of a clear definition of this term in the statute’s history. The court distinguished prior cases where CPLR 3213 was granted, noting they typically involved commercial paper with a formal, explicit acknowledgement of indebtedness by the party to be charged, such as accepted sight drafts or promissory notes. The court contrasted these with cases where CPLR 3213 was denied, such as actions based on contracts requiring more than a simple promise to pay. The court found the absence of a subscribed written instrument from R.S.M. to be critical. Quoting Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., the court stated that a prima facie case must be made out by the instrument itself. Because Interman relied on an implied account stated without a written agreement, there was no instrument to establish a prima facie case. The court clarified that even a promissory note evidencing an account stated would be the instrument upon which summary judgment would need to be based. The key factor is that there must be a subscribed instrument demonstrating the obligation to pay.

June 11, 1975

Tag: CPLR 3213

Banco Popular North America v. Victory Taxi Management, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 381 (2004): Establishing a Triable Issue of Fact in Forgery Claims

Interman Industrial Products, Ltd. v. R. S. M. Electron Power, Inc., 37 N.Y.2d 151 (1975): Availability of Summary Judgment for Accounts Stated