Middle East Bank v. Piquante Sportswear, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Middle East Bank v. Piquante Sportswear, Inc.

207 A.D.2d 261, 615 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8142

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

DecidedAugust 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 261 (Middle East Bank v. Piquante Sportswear, Inc.) 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

Middle East Bank v. Piquante Sportswear, Inc., 207 A.D.2d 261, 615 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen G. Crane, J.), entered April 26, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against defendant-appellant guarantor on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant’s assertion that plaintiff told him that the instrument sued upon was not a guarantee but a security agreement replacing another that plaintiff had misplaced did not raise a genuine issue whether appellant had been fraudulently misled into signing the guarantee. Appellant is an experienced businessperson familiar with bank security agreements, and the word “guaranty” appears many times on the document in question. As the IAS Court found, the fact issue appellant [262]*262would raise can only be viewed as "feigned”. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen G. Crane, J.), entered April 26, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against defendant-appellant guarantor on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant’s assertion that plaintiff told him that the instrument sued upon was not a guarantee but a security agreement replacing another that plaintiff had misplaced did not raise a genuine issue whether appellant had been fraudulently misled into signing the guarantee. Appellant is an experienced businessperson familiar with bank security agreements, and the word “guaranty” appears many times on the document in question. As the IAS Court found, the fact issue appellant [262]*262would raise can only be viewed as "feigned”. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 261, 615 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middle-east-bank-v-piquante-sportswear-inc-nyappdiv-1994.