Teitelbaum v. Mordowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teitelbaum v. Mordowitz

248 A.D.2d 161, 669 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2370

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 161 (Teitelbaum v. Mordowitz) 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

Teitelbaum v. Mordowitz, 248 A.D.2d 161, 669 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered October 15, 1996, insofar as appealed from, awarding plaintiff damages as against defendant-appellant after granting her motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The three writings on which plaintiff relies clearly constitute a continuing obligation by defendant personally to guarantee repayment of plaintiff’s $220,000 loan given to certain real estate projects with which defendant was associated. All three writings recite the same $220,000 loan, and do not lack consideration simply because they were not executed contemporaneously with the loan. Consideration for a guarantee can be past or executed, where, as here, the guarantee recites in writing that it is being given in exchange for a loan and there is no question that the proceeds of the loan were received (General Obligations Law § 5-1105; Liberty Natl. Bank v Gross, 201 AD2d 467; North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v Jay-Ann Assocs., 192 AD2d 590, Iv dismissed 82 NY2d 705).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered October 15, 1996, insofar as appealed from, awarding plaintiff damages as against defendant-appellant after granting her motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The three writings on which plaintiff relies clearly constitute a continuing obligation by defendant personally to guarantee repayment of plaintiff’s $220,000 loan given to certain real estate projects with which defendant was associated. All three writings recite the same $220,000 loan, and do not lack consideration simply because they were not executed contemporaneously with the loan. Consideration for a guarantee can be past or executed, where, as here, the guarantee recites in writing that it is being given in exchange for a loan and there is no question that the proceeds of the loan were received (General Obligations Law § 5-1105; Liberty Natl. Bank v Gross, 201 AD2d 467; North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v Jay-Ann Assocs., 192 AD2d 590, Iv dismissed 82 NY2d 705).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 161, 669 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teitelbaum-v-mordowitz-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack