Oneida National Bank v. Gulla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oneida National Bank v. Gulla

122 A.D.2d 590, 505 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59868

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 590 (Oneida National Bank v. Gulla) 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

Oneida National Bank v. Gulla, 122 A.D.2d 590, 505 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: When the guarantee and [591]*591mortgage, both executed September 22, 1977, and the note executed the following day are read together (see, 38 NY Jur, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, § 66), there is a question of fact precluding summary judgment. Whether the parties intended the clause "any and all indebtedness * * * now or hereafter due and owing”, to secure the future personal indebtedness of Dominick Gulla, or only the business indebtedness of "mickey’s auto land”, which he owns, cannot be determined on this record (see, 38 NY Jur, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, §§ 57, 58; Eisenberg v Citation-Langley Corp., 99 AD2d 700, 701; Kaye v Keret, 89 AD2d 885, 886-887; cf. State Bank v Fioravanti, 51 NY2d 638, 644-645). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Donovan, J. — partial summary judgment.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: When the guarantee and [591]*591mortgage, both executed September 22, 1977, and the note executed the following day are read together (see, 38 NY Jur, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, § 66), there is a question of fact precluding summary judgment. Whether the parties intended the clause "any and all indebtedness * * * now or hereafter due and owing”, to secure the future personal indebtedness of Dominick Gulla, or only the business indebtedness of "mickey’s auto land”, which he owns, cannot be determined on this record (see, 38 NY Jur, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, §§ 57, 58; Eisenberg v Citation-Langley Corp., 99 AD2d 700, 701; Kaye v Keret, 89 AD2d 885, 886-887; cf. State Bank v Fioravanti, 51 NY2d 638, 644-645). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Donovan, J. — partial summary judgment.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 590, 505 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneida-national-bank-v-gulla-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack