Durable Group, Inc. v. De Benedetto

85 A.D.2d 524, 444 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16296
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 8, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 524 (Durable Group, Inc. v. De Benedetto) 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
Durable Group, Inc. v. De Benedetto, 85 A.D.2d 524, 444 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Maresca, J.), entered May 1, 1981, which granted plaintiff-respondent’s motion for summary judgment, modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the judgment and denying plaintiff’s motion, and, otherwise, affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff-respondent seeks to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien in the sum of $42,900 filed for construction work performed for Fratorium, Inc., the defaulting tenant. Defendants-appellants wish to interpose counterclaims based on their position as owners of the premises and guarantors for Fratorium of the construction contract, pursuant to a written modification agreement executed January 29, 1979. There are sufficient triable issues of fact so that summary judgment should not be granted. (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395; Marshall, Bratter, Greene, Allison & Tucker v Mechner, 53 AD2d 537.) As either guarantor or surety, appellants are entitled to assert any defenses or counterclaims that were available to the principal obligor, Fratorium, Inc. (Walcutt v Clevite Corp., 13 NY2d 48, 56), and may contest their liability under the gurantee agreement inasmuch as they are not bound by the default of the principal. (Shapiro v Marstone Distrs., 38 AD2d 604; 57 NY Jur, Suretyship and Guaranty, § 240 et seq.) Allegations of economic duress and coercion go to the very essence and validity of the modification agreement signed by the appellants. (Austin Instrumento Loral Corp., 29 NY2d 124; see, also, Taylor & Jennings v Bellino Bros. Constr. Co., 57 AD2d 42.) The fact that respondent seeks to foreclose against the property owned by the appellants and avoid any claims of setoff by the now defunct Fratorium company should not bar the appellants, as guarantors of the agreement, from interposing as a defense a right of setoff against the lienors. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.

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

Related

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America
96 A.D.3d 1284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Markowitz
28 A.D.3d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Midwest Corp. v. Global Cable, Inc.
688 F. Supp. 872 (S.D. New York, 1988)
Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co. v. Cutler
112 A.D.2d 405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Congress Factors Corp. v. Meinhard Commercial Corp.
129 Misc. 2d 726 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
Spancrete Northeast, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
112 A.D.2d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Fopeco, Inc. v. General Coatings Technologies, Inc.
107 A.D.2d 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kalkstein
101 A.D.2d 102 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.2d 524, 444 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durable-group-inc-v-de-benedetto-nyappdiv-1981.