Citibank, N. A. v. Arnott Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N. A. v. Arnott Corp.

231 A.D.2d 602, 647 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9463

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 602 (Citibank, N. A. v. Arnott Corp.) 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

Citibank, N. A. v. Arnott Corp., 231 A.D.2d 602, 647 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Morton Salkind appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated August 9, 1995, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, or to permit him to interpose an amended answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the appellant’s contention that as part of the transaction by which it released the codefendant Mark Arnott from any obligation to it, the plaintiff, Citibank, N. A., failed to reserve its rights against the appellant, and therefore he was also released from any liability to it. The record shows that as part of the same transaction by which it released Mark Arnott, Citibank sufficiently reserved its rights against the remaining defendants so as to permit it to continue its suit against the appellant (see, General Obligations Law § 15-104; see, Restatement of Security § 122; Jones v Gelles, 167 AD2d 636; cf., North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v Thomason Indus. Corp., 194 AD2d 772).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Morton Salkind appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated August 9, 1995, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, or to permit him to interpose an amended answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the appellant’s contention that as part of the transaction by which it released the codefendant Mark Arnott from any obligation to it, the plaintiff, Citibank, N. A., failed to reserve its rights against the appellant, and therefore he was also released from any liability to it. The record shows that as part of the same transaction by which it released Mark Arnott, Citibank sufficiently reserved its rights against the remaining defendants so as to permit it to continue its suit against the appellant (see, General Obligations Law § 15-104; see, Restatement of Security § 122; Jones v Gelles, 167 AD2d 636; cf., North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v Thomason Indus. Corp., 194 AD2d 772).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 602, 647 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-n-a-v-arnott-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack