Spilky v. Atkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spilky v. Atkin

120 A.D.2d 581, 502 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56667

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

DecidedMay 12, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 581 (Spilky v. Atkin) 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

Spilky v. Atkin, 120 A.D.2d 581, 502 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover on a guarantee of payment of a note, prosecuted pursuant to CPLR 3213 by motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated November 2, 1984, which denied the motion.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff’s motion papers are deemed the complaint. The defen[582]*582dant’s time to serve an answer thereto is extended to 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon with notice of entry.

In addition to his being a party to the agreement creating the obligation secured by the promissory note, the defendant guarantor Benjamin Atkin is also the president and sole stockholder of the corporate principal, thus creating a situation where principal and guarantor are "truly one and the same” (Walcutt v Clevite Corp., 13 NY2d 48, 56). Accordingly, the defendant may properly assert the principal’s defenses in an action on his guarantee (see, Walcutt v Clevite Corp., supra, at pp 56-57). Questions of fact having been raised concerning, inter alia, the propriety of the plaintiff creditor’s liquidation of the corporate assets which were held in escrow, and the defendant’s right to a setoff of the proceeds of such sale, summary judgment was properly denied. Eiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper 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 on a guarantee of payment of a note, prosecuted pursuant to CPLR 3213 by motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated November 2, 1984, which denied the motion.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff’s motion papers are deemed the complaint. The defen[582]*582dant’s time to serve an answer thereto is extended to 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon with notice of entry.

In addition to his being a party to the agreement creating the obligation secured by the promissory note, the defendant guarantor Benjamin Atkin is also the president and sole stockholder of the corporate principal, thus creating a situation where principal and guarantor are "truly one and the same” (Walcutt v Clevite Corp., 13 NY2d 48, 56). Accordingly, the defendant may properly assert the principal’s defenses in an action on his guarantee (see, Walcutt v Clevite Corp., supra, at pp 56-57). Questions of fact having been raised concerning, inter alia, the propriety of the plaintiff creditor’s liquidation of the corporate assets which were held in escrow, and the defendant’s right to a setoff of the proceeds of such sale, summary judgment was properly denied. Eiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 581, 502 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spilky-v-atkin-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack