Again, not a lawyer but...I put my reading glasses
Post# of 36564
(Total Views: 369)
Posted On: 05/17/2020 7:58:30 AM
Again, not a lawyer but...I put my reading glasses on and reread this doc a few times and did a little googling.
To me it is clear that the judgement is related to a motion my the plaintiff for this to be treated as a CPLR 3213. CPLR 3213 is a means for expedited processing and judgement based only on briefs meant for simple cash only promissory notes.
Because the note in question required GNBT be uplifted to NASDAQ the judge decided it did not qualify for CPLR 3213. The plaintiff appealed and the Appellate court affirmed his decision. As seen below it is possible based on how the original case was filed that this may be over or simply sent back for trial.
I don’t know where to look for the original complaint but if someone has a link that might help figure out where it goes now.
“A party contemplating whether or not to bring a motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 should make sure his or her instrument clearly qualifies as a money instrument. If a plaintiff has any doubt as to whether an instrument qualifies, he or she should instead commence an ordinary action, wait until the defendant interposes an answer, and then make a conventional motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212. Otherwise, time, money and resources may be wasted, and the court may become distracted by a procedural battle over whether CPLR 3213 was properly invoked, rather than focusing on the substantive merits of the claim.”
To me it is clear that the judgement is related to a motion my the plaintiff for this to be treated as a CPLR 3213. CPLR 3213 is a means for expedited processing and judgement based only on briefs meant for simple cash only promissory notes.
Because the note in question required GNBT be uplifted to NASDAQ the judge decided it did not qualify for CPLR 3213. The plaintiff appealed and the Appellate court affirmed his decision. As seen below it is possible based on how the original case was filed that this may be over or simply sent back for trial.
I don’t know where to look for the original complaint but if someone has a link that might help figure out where it goes now.
“A party contemplating whether or not to bring a motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 should make sure his or her instrument clearly qualifies as a money instrument. If a plaintiff has any doubt as to whether an instrument qualifies, he or she should instead commence an ordinary action, wait until the defendant interposes an answer, and then make a conventional motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212. Otherwise, time, money and resources may be wasted, and the court may become distracted by a procedural battle over whether CPLR 3213 was properly invoked, rather than focusing on the substantive merits of the claim.”
(4)
(0)