Lane Crawford Jewelry Center, Inc. v. Han

222 A.D.2d 214, 634 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12620
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 5, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 214 (Lane Crawford Jewelry Center, Inc. v. Han) 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
Lane Crawford Jewelry Center, Inc. v. Han, 222 A.D.2d 214, 634 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered November 23, 1994, awarding plaintiff the sum of $83,290.16 plus interest, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the judgment as to the defendant Han and as to her to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Given defendant’s denial, in the answer, of having signed the guaranty of payment contained in the sublease at issue and her repeated averments in her affidavit opposing plaintiff s motion for summary judgment and in support of her cross-motion for summary judgment, to which plaintiff did not respond, that the signature on the guaranty bearing her name was a forgery, it was error to award plaintiff summary judgment on the guaranty. The validity of the signature on the [215]*215guaranty was critical because, without a memorandum of such a promise signed by the party to be charged, a guaranty cannot be enforced. (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [2]; Griffin v Bookman, 39 NY2d 57.) Plaintiff submitted two affidavits, one by counsel, stating in a conclusory manner that defendant Han signed the guaranty. Neither alleged that this assertion was based on personal knowledge. Nor was any expert’s affidavit submitted attesting to the validity of defendant Han’s signature. Thus, summary judgment should have been denied as to this defendant. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Medical Supply of NY Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 50412(U) (NYC Civil Court, Kings, 2025)
Macdougal & Sixth Realty LLC v. Vergine
2024 NY Slip Op 32297(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Andreyeva v. Haym Solomon Home for the Aged, LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 00281 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Alvidrez v. Roberto Coin, Inc.
6 Misc. 3d 742 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
Belle Harbor Wash. Hotel, Inc. v. Jefferson Omega Corp.
2004 NY Slip Op 50783(U) (New York Supreme Court, Queens County, 2004)
Seoulbank, New York Agency v. D & J Export & Import Corp.
270 A.D.2d 193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Encore Communications, Inc. v. Stick Sales & Distribution, Inc.
267 A.D.2d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Old Oak Realty, Inc. v. Polimeni
232 A.D.2d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 214, 634 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-crawford-jewelry-center-inc-v-han-nyappdiv-1995.