Fingerhut v. Fleet Bank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fingerhut v. Fleet Bank, N. A.

270 A.D.2d 124, 705 N.Y.S.2d 43, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3000

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 124 (Fingerhut v. Fleet Bank, N. A.) 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

Fingerhut v. Fleet Bank, N. A., 270 A.D.2d 124, 705 N.Y.S.2d 43, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about June 7, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs first and second causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs claim that the subject hypothecation agreement was materially altered subsequent to its execution by him to expose the assets pledged by him to execution by defendant bank in the event of a default by Lorec Systems, Inc. is specious. In a letter, written subsequent to the alleged alteration of the hypothecation agreement, requesting a substitution of collateral under the hypothecation agreement, plaintiffs counsel referenced the matter as “Lorec Systems,” thereby acknowledging and ratifying plaintiffs agreement to answer for Lorec Systems’ obligation to the bank to the extent of the pledged assets. In any event, as the IAS Court observed, the language of the hypothecation agreement, as signed by plaintiff, exposed him to liability for Lorec Systems, Inc.’s debts, even without the inclusion of Lorec’s name. Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about June 7, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs first and second causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs claim that the subject hypothecation agreement was materially altered subsequent to its execution by him to expose the assets pledged by him to execution by defendant bank in the event of a default by Lorec Systems, Inc. is specious. In a letter, written subsequent to the alleged alteration of the hypothecation agreement, requesting a substitution of collateral under the hypothecation agreement, plaintiffs counsel referenced the matter as “Lorec Systems,” thereby acknowledging and ratifying plaintiffs agreement to answer for Lorec Systems’ obligation to the bank to the extent of the pledged assets. In any event, as the IAS Court observed, the language of the hypothecation agreement, as signed by plaintiff, exposed him to liability for Lorec Systems, Inc.’s debts, even without the inclusion of Lorec’s name. Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 124, 705 N.Y.S.2d 43, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fingerhut-v-fleet-bank-n-a-nyappdiv-2000.