Tilden Financial Corp. v. Muffoletto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tilden Financial Corp. v. Muffoletto

140 A.D.2d 603, 528 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5586

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 23, 1988·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant alleges that he did not execute the guarantee in question and that he was away on business at the time of the alleged execution. The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment since there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant executed the guarantee (see, Keh Soo Park v White Eng’g Corp., 99 AD2d 719; Langford v Cameron, 73 AD2d 1001, 81 AD2d 720; Himan v King Bear Auto Serv. Centers, 62 AD2d 1010; Armstrong Rubber Co. v Autotransformation, Inc., 61 AD2d 1129). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant alleges that he did not execute the guarantee in question and that he was away on business at the time of the alleged execution. The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment since there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant executed the guarantee (see, Keh Soo Park v White Eng’g Corp., 99 AD2d 719; Langford v Cameron, 73 AD2d 1001, 81 AD2d 720; Himan v King Bear Auto Serv. Centers, 62 AD2d 1010; Armstrong Rubber Co. v Autotransformation, Inc., 61 AD2d 1129). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Tilden Financial Corp. v. Muffoletto, 140 A.D.2d 603, 528 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

140 A.D.2d 603 (Tilden Financial Corp. v. Muffoletto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related