Sony Corp. of America v. Nathanson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sony Corp. of America v. Nathanson

193 A.D.2d 513, 597 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5097

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

DecidedMay 20, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 513 (Sony Corp. of America v. Nathanson) 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

Sony Corp. of America v. Nathanson, 193 A.D.2d 513, 597 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered April 15, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for renewal, and the order of the same court and Justice, entered April 23, 1992, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for an order of attachment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its right to collect upon the unconditional guaranty of payment executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff’s assignor, and notice of the assignment was not a prerequisite for its effectiveness against the obligor (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 402). This determination renders unnecessary the technical amendment to the answer which defendant seeks. Plaintiff demonstrated the availability of the attachment remedy under CPLR 6201 (1) and (3). Concur— Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered April 15, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for renewal, and the order of the same court and Justice, entered April 23, 1992, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for an order of attachment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its right to collect upon the unconditional guaranty of payment executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff’s assignor, and notice of the assignment was not a prerequisite for its effectiveness against the obligor (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 402). This determination renders unnecessary the technical amendment to the answer which defendant seeks. Plaintiff demonstrated the availability of the attachment remedy under CPLR 6201 (1) and (3). Concur— Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 513, 597 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sony-corp-of-america-v-nathanson-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack