BNY Financial Corp. v. Marlow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BNY Financial Corp. v. Marlow

198 A.D.2d 94, 605 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10606

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1993·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about February 11, 1993, which granted plaintiffs motion for reargument, and upon reargument, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its complaint, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from the order of the same court, entered on or about January 27, 1993, which denied defendants’ motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, as no appeal lies from a denial for reargument (see, e.g., Snyder v Parke, Davis & Co., 56 AD2d 536). Plaintiff shall recover of defendants one bill of $250.00 costs and disbursements.

As the instant unconditional Guaranty clearly covers the transactions at issue, there are no material questions which need be determined by the trier of fact and therefore, summary judgment was properly granted. Indeed, the relevant transactions had their "inception” prior to the effective termination date of the Guaranty and there certainly was no requirement that the contracted for goods be shipped prior to the termination date of the Guaranty. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about February 11, 1993, which granted plaintiffs motion for reargument, and upon reargument, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its complaint, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from the order of the same court, entered on or about January 27, 1993, which denied defendants’ motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, as no appeal lies from a denial for reargument (see, e.g., Snyder v Parke, Davis & Co., 56 AD2d 536). Plaintiff shall recover of defendants one bill of $250.00 costs and disbursements.

As the instant unconditional Guaranty clearly covers the transactions at issue, there are no material questions which need be determined by the trier of fact and therefore, summary judgment was properly granted. Indeed, the relevant transactions had their "inception” prior to the effective termination date of the Guaranty and there certainly was no requirement that the contracted for goods be shipped prior to the termination date of the Guaranty. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

BNY Financial Corp. v. Marlow, 198 A.D.2d 94, 605 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

198 A.D.2d 94 (BNY Financial Corp. v. Marlow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related