Juste v. Niewdach

26 A.D.3d 416, 809 N.Y.S.2d 563
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 21, 2006·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

[417] In an action to enforce a guaranty brought pursuant to CPLR 3213 by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, the defendant appeals, (1) as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated December 1, 2004, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) from a judgment of the same court dated January 5, 2005, in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $10,290.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff made out a prima facie case for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 by establishing that the subject guaranty was an instrument for the payment of a sum certain, and that the defendant failed to make the payments called for by its terms (see Interman Indus. Prods. v R. S. M. Electron Power, 37 NY2d 151 [1975]). The mere presence of additional provisions in the guaranty referring to the defendant’s assumption of the tenant’s obligations in the lease did not constitute a bar to CPLR 3213 relief, because these provisions did not require additional performance as a condition precedent to repayment, or otherwise alter the defendant’s promise of payment (see Afco Credit Corp. v Boropark Twelfth Ave. Realty Corp., 187 AD2d 634 [1992]; First Interstate Credit Alliance v Sokol, 179 AD2d 583 [1992]; Gittleson v Dempster, 148 AD2d 578 [1989]). The defendant failed to raise any triable issue of fact.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur. (See 6 Misc 3d 1010(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 51767(U) (2004).]

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

Juste v. Niewdach, 26 A.D.3d 416, 809 N.Y.S.2d 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

26 A.D.3d 416 (Juste v. Niewdach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

BLT Fund 9 Dayton's LLC v. 601 Minnesota Inv. LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 32120(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Whitestone Plaza, LLC v. You Lin Shen
2024 NY Slip Op 05129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Sisters of Holy Child Jesus at Old Westbury, Inc. v. Pallotta
131 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Sisters of Holy Child Jesus at Old Westbury, Inc. v. Pallotta
131 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
US Premium Finance v. Sage Equipment Leasing Corp.
122 A.D.3d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecommunications
47 Misc. 3d 544 (New York Supreme Court, 2014)
Allied Irish Banks, PLC v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Greenwich
36 Misc. 3d 216 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Runfola v. Cavagnaro
62 A.D.3d 981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Premium Assignment Corp. v. Utopia Home Care, Inc.
58 A.D.3d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)