General
Tony Perpignan, Appellant, v. First Franklin Financial Corp., Respondent
87 A.D.3d 1117929 N.Y.S.2d 882·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2011·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Tony Perpignan, Appellant, v First Franklin Financial Corp., Respondent.
[929 NYS2d 882]
[MAJORITY]
The plaintiff seeks the discharge of his obligation under a promissory note, on the ground that the note was materially altered after he executed it. However, the plaintiff failed to allege any manner in which the note was materially altered (see UCC 3-407, 3-202; cf. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Allen, 232 AD2d 80, 85-86 [1997]; NAB Asset Venture III v Stanley Simon Diamonds, Inc., 236 AD2d 291 [1997]; Modern Indus. Bank v Woodman, 263 App Div 1019, 1020 [1942]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Skelos, J.E, Eng, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.