Downes v. Aran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Downes v. Aran

229 A.D.2d 1025, 646 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9139

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 229 A.D.2d 1025 (Downes v. Aran) 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

Downes v. Aran, 229 A.D.2d 1025, 646 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (see, CPLR 3213) were properly granted. It is undisputed that defendants executed unconditional personal guarantees of payment for loans made by plaintiffs to World Holding, Inc., and that defendants failed to make payment upon the corporation’s default. In opposition to plaintiffs’ motions, defendants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial on their defense of fraud in the inducement. The fraudulent misrepresentations alleged by defendants were not made by plaintiffs and defendants have produced no evidence that plaintiffs participated in the alleged fraud (see, Key Bank v Ryan, 132 AD2d 220, 223; Sterling Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v I. S. A. Merchandising Corp., 91 AD2d 571, 572; Union Natl. Bank v Schurm, 87 AD2d 682, 683). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County, Milano, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (see, CPLR 3213) were properly granted. It is undisputed that defendants executed unconditional personal guarantees of payment for loans made by plaintiffs to World Holding, Inc., and that defendants failed to make payment upon the corporation’s default. In opposition to plaintiffs’ motions, defendants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial on their defense of fraud in the inducement. The fraudulent misrepresentations alleged by defendants were not made by plaintiffs and defendants have produced no evidence that plaintiffs participated in the alleged fraud (see, Key Bank v Ryan, 132 AD2d 220, 223; Sterling Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v I. S. A. Merchandising Corp., 91 AD2d 571, 572; Union Natl. Bank v Schurm, 87 AD2d 682, 683). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County, Milano, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 1025, 646 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downes-v-aran-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack