Chemical Bank v. Prudent Holding Co. of America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chemical Bank v. Prudent Holding Co. of America, Inc.

63 A.D.2d 666, 404 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11545

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

DecidedMay 8, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 666 (Chemical Bank v. Prudent Holding Co. of America, 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

Chemical Bank v. Prudent Holding Co. of America, Inc., 63 A.D.2d 666, 404 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a promissory note against the borrower and the guarantor, defendant Czachorowski, the guarantor, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 20, 1977, which is in favor of plaintiff and against him, upon the granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. On the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed amended so as to show that it is also from a further judgment of the same court, entered February 8, 1977, which awarded plaintiff counsel fees as provided for in the guarantee (see CPLR 5520, subd [c]). Judgments affirmed, with one bill of costs. Appellant fails to present any issues of fact which require a trial. The guarantee was clear, unconditional, absolute and continuing. It waived any claim to collateral, or substitution thereof, and absolved respondent from any liability in connection therewith. Latham, J. P., Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Suozzi, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgments and deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, with the following memorandum: In my view, the individual defendant’s opposition papers to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, however inartfully drawn, raise genuine issues of fact with respect to his claims of conspiracy and fraud, which can only be resolved after the completion of appropriate discovery proceedings and a full trial.

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

In an action on a promissory note against the borrower and the guarantor, defendant Czachorowski, the guarantor, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 20, 1977, which is in favor of plaintiff and against him, upon the granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. On the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed amended so as to show that it is also from a further judgment of the same court, entered February 8, 1977, which awarded plaintiff counsel fees as provided for in the guarantee (see CPLR 5520, subd [c]). Judgments affirmed, with one bill of costs. Appellant fails to present any issues of fact which require a trial. The guarantee was clear, unconditional, absolute and continuing. It waived any claim to collateral, or substitution thereof, and absolved respondent from any liability in connection therewith. Latham, J. P., Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Suozzi, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgments and deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, with the following memorandum: In my view, the individual defendant’s opposition papers to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, however inartfully drawn, raise genuine issues of fact with respect to his claims of conspiracy and fraud, which can only be resolved after the completion of appropriate discovery proceedings and a full trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 666, 404 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemical-bank-v-prudent-holding-co-of-america-inc-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack