Metal Management, Inc. v. Esmark Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Metal Management, Inc. v. Esmark Inc.

49 A.D.3d 333, 854 N.Y.2d 6

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 2008·Published

Opinion

Plaintiff has not established its prima facie entitlement to accelerated judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213. Its claim, based on a guaranty, requires resort to external documents, since the guarantor guaranteed the punctual payment when due of all payment obligations pursuant to each purchase order and payment of the guaranteed obligations strictly in accordance with the terms of each purchase order, and the purchase orders required that invoices be issued, that the goods furnished be of good quality, and that any discrepancies be resolved prior to invoicing (see Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437, 444 [1996]; Tradition N. Am. v Sweeney, 133 AD2d 53, 53-54 [1987]).

In any event, despite all the documents submitted by plaintiff, a clear issue of fact exists as to the quantum of damages due under the guaranty, as to which plaintiff bears the burden of proof (see J.R. Loftus, Inc. v White, 85 NY2d 874, 877 [1995]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Plaintiff has not established its prima facie entitlement to accelerated judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213. Its claim, based on a guaranty, requires resort to external documents, since the guarantor guaranteed the punctual payment when due of all payment obligations pursuant to each purchase order and payment of the guaranteed obligations strictly in accordance with the terms of each purchase order, and the purchase orders required that invoices be issued, that the goods furnished be of good quality, and that any discrepancies be resolved prior to invoicing (see Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437, 444 [1996]; Tradition N. Am. v Sweeney, 133 AD2d 53, 53-54 [1987]).

In any event, despite all the documents submitted by plaintiff, a clear issue of fact exists as to the quantum of damages due under the guaranty, as to which plaintiff bears the burden of proof (see J.R. Loftus, Inc. v White, 85 NY2d 874, 877 [1995]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

Metal Management, Inc. v. Esmark Inc., 49 A.D.3d 333, 854 N.Y.2d 6 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 333 (Metal Management, Inc. v. Esmark Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related