Ishkhanian v. Guekguezian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ishkhanian v. Guekguezian

158 A.D.2d 325, 551 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1134

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 325 (Ishkhanian v. Guekguezian) 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

Ishkhanian v. Guekguezian, 158 A.D.2d 325, 551 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff commenced this action by summons and notice of motion to recover on two promissory notes executed by the defendant in plaintiff’s favor. It is not contested that the notes represent a balance of $75,000 owed by defendant and her wholly owned company Park Travel Ltd. on a $25,000 loan previously made to defendant Guekguezian, individually, and a $100,000 collateral agreement given by plaintiff to secure a loan to defendant’s company in that amount from Bank Audi (USA). Defendant defaulted on the bank loan and the bank claimed plaintiff’s funds. The two notes were executed for $25,000 and $50,000, respectively, and were each due on a date certain. Defendant signed both notes as maker. She signed the $25,000 note below her typewritten name, and signed the $50,000 note below the typewritten words “Arpi Guekguezian and Park Travel Limited”.

Defendant concedes that she failed to pay the notes when they became due, but seeks to avoid payment on the ground that she signed the notes under duress. Defendant submitted an affidavit below in which she alleges that plaintiff’s husband [326]*326threatened her with physical violence and threatened to take her dog away if she did not sign the notes. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of her husband and herself, refuting defendant’s assertions and stating that the entire transaction was conducted through two third parties.

Defendant’s acknowledgment of the debt in the exact amount covered by the notes, which bear no interest rate, renders her general allegations of duress suspect. Without further proof in evidentiary form, those allegations fail to raise a triable issue with respect to the defense of duress. (Cf., Sulner v Traver, 75 AD2d 616; see also, Conolog Corp. v P. R. Elecs. Export, 140 AD2d 190.) Defendant’s assertion that the notes were executed by her as an officer of her corporation to cover corporate debts is equally unavailing. There is no indication of her representative capacity on either note, and that assertion contradicts the unambiguous terms of the notes. (Hackensack Cars v Beverly, 140 AD2d 254, lv dismissed 72 NY2d 1041; Marine Midland Bank v DiMarzo, 57 AD2d 733.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Plaintiff commenced this action by summons and notice of motion to recover on two promissory notes executed by the defendant in plaintiff’s favor. It is not contested that the notes represent a balance of $75,000 owed by defendant and her wholly owned company Park Travel Ltd. on a $25,000 loan previously made to defendant Guekguezian, individually, and a $100,000 collateral agreement given by plaintiff to secure a loan to defendant’s company in that amount from Bank Audi (USA). Defendant defaulted on the bank loan and the bank claimed plaintiff’s funds. The two notes were executed for $25,000 and $50,000, respectively, and were each due on a date certain. Defendant signed both notes as maker. She signed the $25,000 note below her typewritten name, and signed the $50,000 note below the typewritten words “Arpi Guekguezian and Park Travel Limited”.

Defendant concedes that she failed to pay the notes when they became due, but seeks to avoid payment on the ground that she signed the notes under duress. Defendant submitted an affidavit below in which she alleges that plaintiff’s husband [326]*326threatened her with physical violence and threatened to take her dog away if she did not sign the notes. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of her husband and herself, refuting defendant’s assertions and stating that the entire transaction was conducted through two third parties.

Defendant’s acknowledgment of the debt in the exact amount covered by the notes, which bear no interest rate, renders her general allegations of duress suspect. Without further proof in evidentiary form, those allegations fail to raise a triable issue with respect to the defense of duress. (Cf., Sulner v Traver, 75 AD2d 616; see also, Conolog Corp. v P. R. Elecs. Export, 140 AD2d 190.) Defendant’s assertion that the notes were executed by her as an officer of her corporation to cover corporate debts is equally unavailing. There is no indication of her representative capacity on either note, and that assertion contradicts the unambiguous terms of the notes. (Hackensack Cars v Beverly, 140 AD2d 254, lv dismissed 72 NY2d 1041; Marine Midland Bank v DiMarzo, 57 AD2d 733.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 325, 551 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ishkhanian-v-guekguezian-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack