J R & R Holding Co. v. 730 Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J R & R Holding Co. v. 730 Realty Associates

199 A.D.2d 80, 605 N.Y.S.2d 862

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 80 (J R & R Holding Co. v. 730 Realty Associates) 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

J R & R Holding Co. v. 730 Realty Associates, 199 A.D.2d 80, 605 N.Y.S.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered on or about September 19, 1992, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants-appellants in the amount of $337,473.09, and bringing up for review an order, inter alia, granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action on a guarantee, we agree with the IAS Court that appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning their claim of usury. Nor is there merit to appellants’ argument that each one of them should not have been held liable for the total amount of the judgment, each having individually signed the guarantee without in any manner limiting his liability (see, 63 NY Jur 2d, Guaranty and Suretyship, § 126, at 183). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered on or about September 19, 1992, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants-appellants in the amount of $337,473.09, and bringing up for review an order, inter alia, granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action on a guarantee, we agree with the IAS Court that appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning their claim of usury. Nor is there merit to appellants’ argument that each one of them should not have been held liable for the total amount of the judgment, each having individually signed the guarantee without in any manner limiting his liability (see, 63 NY Jur 2d, Guaranty and Suretyship, § 126, at 183). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 80, 605 N.Y.S.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-r-r-holding-co-v-730-realty-associates-nyappdiv-1993.