(DOWNLOAD) "Luxonomy Cars v. Citibank" by Supreme Court of New York " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Luxonomy Cars v. Citibank
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 02, 1978
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 2, 1978, as (1) granted plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended complaint asserting a fifth cause of action as an additional theory of recovery and (2) denied the branches of its cross motion which sought partial summary judgment dismissing the second, third and fourth causes of action, and the striking of the demand for punitive damages contained in those causes of action. Order modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the first and third decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor a provision denying plaintiffs motion and (2) adding to the second decretal paragraph thereof provisions striking the claim for punitive damages asserted in the third cause of action and granting defendant summary judgment as to the second and fourth causes of action. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. This action concerns a loan agreement executed by plaintiff Luxonomy Cars, Inc. (Luxonomy) and defendant (Citibank) in January, 1975. The agreement provided for a loan to Luxonomy in the principal amount of $45,000, to be repaid in monthly installments of $1,875. Plaintiff Michael Lang, president and sole shareholder of Luxonomy, and his wife, signed as comakers of the note. Under paragraph IV(j) of the note, Citibank reserved the right to accelerate the note without notice "should the affairs of the undersigned, in the good faith opinion of the Bank, so change as to impair the Banks security or increase its credit risk; or should the Bank, in good faith, at any time deem itself insecure". Pursuant to paragraph II of the note, Luxonomys accounts with Citibank were "pledged" to the bank. Citibank maintained the right, with or without notice, to "appropriate and apply" amounts on deposit to the payment of outstanding obligations of the debtor. At the time of the execution of the note, and at all relevant times thereafter, Luxonomy maintained a checking account at Citibank. Luxonomy made the payments as they became due and, by January, 1976, nearly half the loan had been repaid. At that time, Luxonomy applied to Citibank for a Small Business Administration Loan in the amount of $150,000 and, in connection therewith, submitted an unaudited financial statement "for the year ended September 30, 1975". The statement indicated a net operating loss of about $44,500. On the basis of this information, Citibank accelerated the loan and applied the entire balance in Luxonomys checking account -- more than $16,000 -- toward payment of the loan. Several checks which had been drawn on the account were dishonored. Plaintiffs allege that Luxonomy, as well as [65 A.D.2d 549 Page 550]
 "Luxonomy Cars v. Citibank" by Supreme Court of New York " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}