Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Poulson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Poulson

199 A.D.2d 208, 606 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12376

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 208 (Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Poulson) 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

Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Poulson, 199 A.D.2d 208, 606 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered June 17, 1992 and March 31, 1993, respectively, [209]*209granting plaintiff’s CPLR 3213 motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint on a note in the principal amount of $135,000 plus interest and reasonable attorney’s fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Each of the notes, including the final one, identifies defendant as the obligor, and makes no mention that defendant was acting as the representative of FNS, his alleged disclosed principal. Thus, no triable issue of fact exists which would preclude the granting of summary judgment in this matter. Defendant is precluded from offering parol evidence to rebut this conclusion as there are no ambiguities on the face of the note. As to defendant’s claim that he was fraudulently induced to guarantee the loan, it is sufficient to observe that defendant cannot claim fraud based upon his own alleged ignorance. Nor has defendant shown that he is not liable on the note for want of consideration since he endorsed the plaintiff’s check. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered June 17, 1992 and March 31, 1993, respectively, [209]*209granting plaintiff’s CPLR 3213 motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint on a note in the principal amount of $135,000 plus interest and reasonable attorney’s fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Each of the notes, including the final one, identifies defendant as the obligor, and makes no mention that defendant was acting as the representative of FNS, his alleged disclosed principal. Thus, no triable issue of fact exists which would preclude the granting of summary judgment in this matter. Defendant is precluded from offering parol evidence to rebut this conclusion as there are no ambiguities on the face of the note. As to defendant’s claim that he was fraudulently induced to guarantee the loan, it is sufficient to observe that defendant cannot claim fraud based upon his own alleged ignorance. Nor has defendant shown that he is not liable on the note for want of consideration since he endorsed the plaintiff’s check. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 208, 606 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-midland-bank-n-a-v-poulson-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack