Bank of India v. Melwani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of India v. Melwani

205 A.D.2d 400, 613 N.Y.S.2d 390

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

DecidedJune 21, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 400 (Bank of India v. Melwani) 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

Bank of India v. Melwani, 205 A.D.2d 400, 613 N.Y.S.2d 390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, [401]*401New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered March 4, 1993, which, insofar as is relevant to the appeal, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, struck defendant-appellant’s affirmative defenses, held defendant-appellant liable for deficiencies following a mortgage foreclosure sale and directed a hearing before a Referee to determine the amount owed to plaintiff, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The guarantee appellant executed applies both to contemporaneous loans and to future loans, is unconditional, and covers all obligations "now or hereafter existing”. Appellant has not made a detailed "evidentiary showing” that the principal obligation had been completely satisfied (cf., Banque Indosuez v Pandeff, 193 AD2d 265, 272). Similarly, she has not set forth sufficient evidence that the principal obligor and the creditor " ' "have clearly expressed or manifested their intention that a subsequent agreement supersede or substitute for an old agreement” ’ ” (Flaum v Birnbaum, 120 AD2d 183, 192).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, [401]*401New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered March 4, 1993, which, insofar as is relevant to the appeal, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, struck defendant-appellant’s affirmative defenses, held defendant-appellant liable for deficiencies following a mortgage foreclosure sale and directed a hearing before a Referee to determine the amount owed to plaintiff, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The guarantee appellant executed applies both to contemporaneous loans and to future loans, is unconditional, and covers all obligations "now or hereafter existing”. Appellant has not made a detailed "evidentiary showing” that the principal obligation had been completely satisfied (cf., Banque Indosuez v Pandeff, 193 AD2d 265, 272). Similarly, she has not set forth sufficient evidence that the principal obligor and the creditor " ' "have clearly expressed or manifested their intention that a subsequent agreement supersede or substitute for an old agreement” ’ ” (Flaum v Birnbaum, 120 AD2d 183, 192).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 400, 613 N.Y.S.2d 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-india-v-melwani-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack