MTB Banking Corp. v. Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MTB Banking Corp. v. Levy

211 A.D.2d 510, 621 N.Y.S.2d 351

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 510 (MTB Banking Corp. v. Levy) 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

MTB Banking Corp. v. Levy, 211 A.D.2d 510, 621 N.Y.S.2d 351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about April 29, 1994, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this consolidated action seeking to recover upon guarantees of payment, the IAS Court properly determined that there are issues of fact as to whether plaintiff assumed fiduciary obligations by managing the defendant company and not maintaining the arm’s length debtor-creditor relationship (see, Fallon v Wall St. Clearing Co., 182 AD2d 245, 250; Chimento Co. v Banco Popular, 208 AD2d 385, 386). Furthermore, the defendants counterclaims also allege fraud and bad faith on the part of the plaintiff (Bank of China v Chan, 937 F2d 780, 789). Finally, the counterclaims are not waived as to the guarantees; the waiver applies specifically to the principal obligation (see, Schneider v OG&C Corp., 684 F Supp 1269, 1273, citing Goodridge v Fernandez, 121 AD2d 942). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about April 29, 1994, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this consolidated action seeking to recover upon guarantees of payment, the IAS Court properly determined that there are issues of fact as to whether plaintiff assumed fiduciary obligations by managing the defendant company and not maintaining the arm’s length debtor-creditor relationship (see, Fallon v Wall St. Clearing Co., 182 AD2d 245, 250; Chimento Co. v Banco Popular, 208 AD2d 385, 386). Furthermore, the defendants counterclaims also allege fraud and bad faith on the part of the plaintiff (Bank of China v Chan, 937 F2d 780, 789). Finally, the counterclaims are not waived as to the guarantees; the waiver applies specifically to the principal obligation (see, Schneider v OG&C Corp., 684 F Supp 1269, 1273, citing Goodridge v Fernandez, 121 AD2d 942). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 510, 621 N.Y.S.2d 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mtb-banking-corp-v-levy-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack