Citibank, N. A. v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N. A. v. Hoffman

244 A.D.2d 151, 663 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11095

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 151 (Citibank, N. A. v. Hoffman) 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. Hoffman, 244 A.D.2d 151, 663 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about July 19, 1996, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as against defendant Hoffman for the unpaid balance on a promissory note executed by defendant partnership Blottner, Derrico & Hoffman, as borrower, and defendants Hoffman and Derrico as comakers, and denied defendant Hoffman’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted on the ground that the Specific Release executed by plaintiff, pursuant to a stipulation of settlement wherein defendant Derrico and others agreed to pay plaintiff $35,000 to be applied to defendants’ principal indebtedness, expressly reserved plaintiffs rights as against defendant Hoffman, who irrespective of his status as a partner, was jointly and severally liable in his separate capacity as a comaker of the note (see, North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v Thomason Indus. Corp., 194 AD2d 772, 774). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about July 19, 1996, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as against defendant Hoffman for the unpaid balance on a promissory note executed by defendant partnership Blottner, Derrico & Hoffman, as borrower, and defendants Hoffman and Derrico as comakers, and denied defendant Hoffman’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted on the ground that the Specific Release executed by plaintiff, pursuant to a stipulation of settlement wherein defendant Derrico and others agreed to pay plaintiff $35,000 to be applied to defendants’ principal indebtedness, expressly reserved plaintiffs rights as against defendant Hoffman, who irrespective of his status as a partner, was jointly and severally liable in his separate capacity as a comaker of the note (see, North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v Thomason Indus. Corp., 194 AD2d 772, 774). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 151, 663 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-n-a-v-hoffman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack