BNY Financial Corp. v. N.G.N., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BNY Financial Corp. v. N.G.N., Inc.

280 A.D.2d 280, 719 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1369

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 280 (BNY Financial Corp. v. N.G.N., Inc.) 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

BNY Financial Corp. v. N.G.N., Inc., 280 A.D.2d 280, 719 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about April 16, 1999, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as against defendant-appellant Neal Jacobs based upon his guaranty of the obligations of defendants N.G.N., Inc. and Reading Garment Co., and denied defendants’ motion for leave to amend their pleading to assert a counterclaim for waste, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered May 10, 1999, inter alia, awarding BNY Financial Corporation judgment against defendant-appellant, in the principal amount of $304,958.76, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the failure of defendant-appellant and his co-defendants to particularize their claims that plaintiff BNY Financial Corporation, the corporate defendants’ factor, had, subsequent to the dissolution of the corporate defendants, been involved in the sale of their assets, and that the sale had been wasteful, the court properly denied defendants’ motion for leave to assert a counterclaim for waste (see, Mestel & Co. v Smythe, Masterson & Judd, Manda Weintraub, 181 AD2d 501). Additionally, the absence of any questions of fact concerning the amount by which defendants’ obligations exceeded inventory [281]*281warranted the grant of summary judgment on the guaranty executed by Jacobs. In these circumstances, Jacobs’s request to compel discovery is academic. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about April 16, 1999, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as against defendant-appellant Neal Jacobs based upon his guaranty of the obligations of defendants N.G.N., Inc. and Reading Garment Co., and denied defendants’ motion for leave to amend their pleading to assert a counterclaim for waste, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered May 10, 1999, inter alia, awarding BNY Financial Corporation judgment against defendant-appellant, in the principal amount of $304,958.76, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the failure of defendant-appellant and his co-defendants to particularize their claims that plaintiff BNY Financial Corporation, the corporate defendants’ factor, had, subsequent to the dissolution of the corporate defendants, been involved in the sale of their assets, and that the sale had been wasteful, the court properly denied defendants’ motion for leave to assert a counterclaim for waste (see, Mestel & Co. v Smythe, Masterson & Judd, Manda Weintraub, 181 AD2d 501). Additionally, the absence of any questions of fact concerning the amount by which defendants’ obligations exceeded inventory [281]*281warranted the grant of summary judgment on the guaranty executed by Jacobs. In these circumstances, Jacobs’s request to compel discovery is academic. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 280, 719 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bny-financial-corp-v-ngn-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack