AEL Realty Holdings, Inc. v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

AEL Realty Holdings, Inc. v. Frank

210 A.D.2d 16, 619 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11833

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 16 (AEL Realty Holdings, Inc. v. Frank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

AEL Realty Holdings, Inc. v. Frank, 210 A.D.2d 16, 619 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Hammerman, J.), entered March 21, 1994, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the guaranty executed by defendant, deemed an appeal from judgment of said court and Justice entered May 2, 1994, awarding plaintiff $476,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements, and said judgment unanimously affirmed, with COS®.

Defendant concedes that he signed the subject guaranty, that the partnership of which he is a member executed a note and mortgage in favor of Troby Associates and that there was a default thereunder. He also doss not challenge the amount claimed to be still outstanding by plaintiff, the successor in interest to Troby. Contrary to defendant’s contention that there was a binding settlement agreement between himself and Troby under which his guaranty was to be returned in exchange for the delivery of a deed to certain property, there is no evidence that the parties actually ever entered into such an agreement. Therefore, the Supreme Court appropriately granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Concur— Ellerin, J. P„, Wallaeh, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Hammerman, J.), entered March 21, 1994, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the guaranty executed by defendant, deemed an appeal from judgment of said court and Justice entered May 2, 1994, awarding plaintiff $476,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements, and said judgment unanimously affirmed, with COS®.

Defendant concedes that he signed the subject guaranty, that the partnership of which he is a member executed a note and mortgage in favor of Troby Associates and that there was a default thereunder. He also doss not challenge the amount claimed to be still outstanding by plaintiff, the successor in interest to Troby. Contrary to defendant’s contention that there was a binding settlement agreement between himself and Troby under which his guaranty was to be returned in exchange for the delivery of a deed to certain property, there is no evidence that the parties actually ever entered into such an agreement. Therefore, the Supreme Court appropriately granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Concur— Ellerin, J. P„, Wallaeh, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 16, 619 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ael-realty-holdings-inc-v-frank-nyappdiv-1994.