Merchants Bank v. Stahl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merchants Bank v. Stahl

269 A.D.2d 236, 702 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1543

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 236 (Merchants Bank v. Stahl) 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

Merchants Bank v. Stahl, 269 A.D.2d 236, 702 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 12, 1999, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and awarded it a total sum of $108,701.10, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the terms of the guaranty executed by defendant, plaintiff lender’s failure to perfect its security interest in certain collateral allegedly including intellectual property and general intangibles would not, even if such property existed, relieve defendant of his obligations as guarantor (see, Executive Bank v Tighe, 54 NY2d 330, 333). We do not reach the argument that the lender violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing since it is raised for the first time on appeal (see, Murray v City of New York, 195 AD2d 379, 381). Were we to reach it, we would find it to be without merit. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 12, 1999, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and awarded it a total sum of $108,701.10, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the terms of the guaranty executed by defendant, plaintiff lender’s failure to perfect its security interest in certain collateral allegedly including intellectual property and general intangibles would not, even if such property existed, relieve defendant of his obligations as guarantor (see, Executive Bank v Tighe, 54 NY2d 330, 333). We do not reach the argument that the lender violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing since it is raised for the first time on appeal (see, Murray v City of New York, 195 AD2d 379, 381). Were we to reach it, we would find it to be without merit. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 236, 702 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-bank-v-stahl-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack