Sweeters v. Hodges

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sweeters v. Hodges

256 A.D.2d 185, 683 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13726

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 185 (Sweeters v. Hodges) 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

Sweeters v. Hodges, 256 A.D.2d 185, 683 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered September 29, 1997, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A guarantor is liable to the creditor only for the amount of the principal obligor’s default (see, GE Capital Mtge. Servs. v Pinnacle Mtge. Inv. Corp., 897 F Supp 842, 848, n 3). Accordingly, because the principal obligor herein is not in default, its obligation having been duly suspended pursuant to the subordination agreement executed by plaintiff, no amount is now due under the guarantee upon which plaintiff premises his right to recover. Since there is no amount now due, plaintiff has not yet been damaged, and the action was properly dismissed (cf., Rodin Props.—Shore Mall v Ullman, 253 AD2d 403). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered September 29, 1997, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A guarantor is liable to the creditor only for the amount of the principal obligor’s default (see, GE Capital Mtge. Servs. v Pinnacle Mtge. Inv. Corp., 897 F Supp 842, 848, n 3). Accordingly, because the principal obligor herein is not in default, its obligation having been duly suspended pursuant to the subordination agreement executed by plaintiff, no amount is now due under the guarantee upon which plaintiff premises his right to recover. Since there is no amount now due, plaintiff has not yet been damaged, and the action was properly dismissed (cf., Rodin Props.—Shore Mall v Ullman, 253 AD2d 403). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 185, 683 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeters-v-hodges-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack