Norstar Bank of Long Island v. 1099 Route 112 Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Norstar Bank of Long Island v. 1099 Route 112 Corp.

149 A.D.2d 574, 540 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4895

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

DecidedApril 17, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 574 (Norstar Bank of Long Island v. 1099 Route 112 Corp.) 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

Norstar Bank of Long Island v. 1099 Route 112 Corp., 149 A.D.2d 574, 540 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the unpaid balance due on a note made by the corporate defendant and guaranteed by the individual defendants, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated March 10, 1988, which denied its motion for summary judgment against the defendant James Gucciardo.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the defendant James Gucciardo is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment in accordance herewith.

[575]*575The respondent does not deny his indebtedness in his answer. We also note that the respondent, as guarantor, "absolutely and unconditionally guarantee^] * * * prompt and unconditional payment” (see, UCC 3-416). We further note that there are no other triable issues. Therefore, summary judgment should have been granted to the plaintiff against Gucciardo. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover the unpaid balance due on a note made by the corporate defendant and guaranteed by the individual defendants, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated March 10, 1988, which denied its motion for summary judgment against the defendant James Gucciardo.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the defendant James Gucciardo is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment in accordance herewith.

[575]*575The respondent does not deny his indebtedness in his answer. We also note that the respondent, as guarantor, "absolutely and unconditionally guarantee^] * * * prompt and unconditional payment” (see, UCC 3-416). We further note that there are no other triable issues. Therefore, summary judgment should have been granted to the plaintiff against Gucciardo. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 574, 540 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norstar-bank-of-long-island-v-1099-route-112-corp-nyappdiv-1989.