Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. Marcovitz
This text of 56 A.D.2d 763 (Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. Marcovitz) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 14, 1975, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for an order directing disclosure by plaintiff and nonparty witnesses and for an order directing such nonparty witnesses be joined as defendants and for related relief; judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 10, 1976, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint; order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 9, 1976, awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees; unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements to respondent. The defendant’s agreement to pay "any and all legal and other costs and expenses” is broad enough to encompass liability for the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. The defendant’s guarantee is an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213 (Rhodia, Inc. v Steel, 32 AD2d 753). Defendant’s contention on appeal that his guarantee was fraudulently induced was not raised at Special Term and hence cannot be considered here (Smith v Stewart, 45 AD2d 853, affd 38 NY2d 747). On the remaining points raised, we affirm for the reasons stated by Justice Helman at Special Term. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Birns, Silverman and Lynch, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
56 A.D.2d 763, 392 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-manhattan-bank-n-a-v-marcovitz-nyappdiv-1977.