Korea First Bank v. Arirang Boutique Trading Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Korea First Bank v. Arirang Boutique Trading Co.

262 A.D.2d 74, 691 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6467

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

DecidedJune 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 74 (Korea First Bank v. Arirang Boutique Trading Co.) 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

Korea First Bank v. Arirang Boutique Trading Co., 262 A.D.2d 74, 691 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 25, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint as against defendant-appellant guarantor of defendant corporation’s promissory notes, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant’s argument that this action based on a continuing guarantee is time-barred because it was not commenced within six years of. the date of execution of the last of the underlying demand promissory notes, and because appellant himself never made any partial payments on the notes, overlooks the provision in appellant’s guarantee that he was to be conclusively bound by any judgment against the debtor. As against the debtor, the action was timely commenced within six years of the debtor’s last partial payment on the underlying promissory notes (see, Di Nufrio v Ajello, 211 App Div 487, 489). Since the action was timely commenced against the debtor, its simultaneous commencement against appellant was also timely. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, 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 November 25, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint as against defendant-appellant guarantor of defendant corporation’s promissory notes, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant’s argument that this action based on a continuing guarantee is time-barred because it was not commenced within six years of. the date of execution of the last of the underlying demand promissory notes, and because appellant himself never made any partial payments on the notes, overlooks the provision in appellant’s guarantee that he was to be conclusively bound by any judgment against the debtor. As against the debtor, the action was timely commenced within six years of the debtor’s last partial payment on the underlying promissory notes (see, Di Nufrio v Ajello, 211 App Div 487, 489). Since the action was timely commenced against the debtor, its simultaneous commencement against appellant was also timely. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 74, 691 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/korea-first-bank-v-arirang-boutique-trading-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack