Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Co. v. Stein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Co. v. Stein

151 A.D.2d 468, 542 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7464

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

DecidedJune 5, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 468 (Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Co. v. Stein) 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

Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Co. v. Stein, 151 A.D.2d 468, 542 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a written guarantee of payment, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ferraro, J.), entered December 23, 1987, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The mere assertion by the defendants that it was not their intention to become liable for the debtor’s two preexisting notes does not raise a triable issue of fact since the unconditional and continuing guarantee which they executed clearly provides that the guarantee was to apply to the preexisting debts (see, Bethlehem Steel Co. v Turner Constr. Co., 2 NY2d 456, 460; National Bank v Dogwood Constr. Corp., 47 AD2d 848; cf., Kleet Lbr. Co. v Quail Homes, 129 AD2d 564, 565). The defendants’ further contention that they were fraudulently induced into executing the guarantee is unsupported by evidentiary facts and such an assertion is belied by the express provisions of the guarantee (see, Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90).

We have examined the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on a written guarantee of payment, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ferraro, J.), entered December 23, 1987, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The mere assertion by the defendants that it was not their intention to become liable for the debtor’s two preexisting notes does not raise a triable issue of fact since the unconditional and continuing guarantee which they executed clearly provides that the guarantee was to apply to the preexisting debts (see, Bethlehem Steel Co. v Turner Constr. Co., 2 NY2d 456, 460; National Bank v Dogwood Constr. Corp., 47 AD2d 848; cf., Kleet Lbr. Co. v Quail Homes, 129 AD2d 564, 565). The defendants’ further contention that they were fraudulently induced into executing the guarantee is unsupported by evidentiary facts and such an assertion is belied by the express provisions of the guarantee (see, Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90).

We have examined the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 468, 542 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarsdale-national-bank-trust-co-v-stein-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack