Torelli v. Esposito

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 63 N.Y.2d 903, 483 N.Y.S.2d 204, 472 N.E.2d 1032, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4700

Decision Date: 10/18/1984

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Torelli v. Esposito, 63 N.Y.2d 903, 483 N.Y.S.2d 204, 472 N.E.2d 1032, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4700 (1984)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1984

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Cited

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s2000s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.4

Bankr. E.D.N.Y.1

Most recently cited by4

2025Kwok Ching Cheung v. Sunrise Plaza, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2023Landa v. Friedman N.Y. App. Div.
2008In re 37-02 Plaza LLC Bankr. E.D.N.Y.
1987Boyarsky v. Froccaro N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 1 case

Ehrlich v. American Moninger Greenhouse Manufacturing Corp.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Thomas Torelli, as Administrator of the Estate of James Torelli, Deceased, Respondent, v John Esposito, Defendant, and Rachel Esposito, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
James J. Harrington for appellant.
Richard M. Resnick for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and order brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.

The parties executed a promissory note and stock purchase agreement under which plaintiff’s decedent sold defendants certain shares of stock in return for a $365,000 interest-bearing promissory note. On defendant’s default, plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce the written contract. Special Term denied the motion because questions of fact existed as to the failure of consideration. The Appellate Division reversed, finding defendants’ allegations in response to the motion conclusory and unsupported by factual substance or documentary evidence. We disagree. In opposing the summary judgment motion, defendant John Esposito provided a detailed recitation of the negotiations among the parties and the closing of the contract. This recitation, based on defendant’s firsthand knowledge, directly supported his allegation that plaintiff’s decedent did not own the subject stock, that the sale had never in fact occurred, and that the obligation to pay therefore lacked consideration, and he offered an explanation for the absence of documentary evidence. These allegations cannot be dismissed as conclusory or speculative (compare Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, with costs, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied in a memorandum.