Milliken & Co. v. Gans

82 A.D.2d 781, 440 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14427
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 25, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 781 (Milliken & Co. v. Gans) 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
Milliken & Co. v. Gans, 82 A.D.2d 781, 440 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Gabel, J.), entered May 29, 1980, which denied plaintiff-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and summary judgment granted. The facts presented and documented by plaintiff, that Gans unconditionally guaranteed the debts of Global Woolens Corporation and that Global owed plaintiff over $4,300 were unrefuted by any facts presented by Gans. Although under the circumstances of this case, the guarantor Gans had the right to avail himself of any defense available to Global (Walcutt v Clevite Corp., 13 NY2d 48, 55-57), a search of the record fails to reveal any issue of fact requiring a trial. Notwithstanding Gans’ claim that there was an agreement between plaintiff and Global that the maximum yardage to be contained in each roll of fabric would not exceed 105 yards, defendant has not demonstrated that there is a factual issue as to roll size. The purchase contract between plaintiff and Global did not contain any reference to roll size. The contract provided that any deviation from its terms was required to be in writing. Defendant did not produce any such writing. Assuming that Gans’ claim of a contemporaneous agreement between plaintiff and Global as to roll size is not barred by subdivision (b) of section 2-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, Gans did not produce any documentary evidence to support such contention. Accordingly, Gans’ allegations do not preclude summary judgment against him. Concur — Birns, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Bloom and Fein, JJ.

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

Related

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kalkstein
101 A.D.2d 102 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.2d 781, 440 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milliken-co-v-gans-nyappdiv-1981.