Tilden Financial Corp. v. Neuberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tilden Financial Corp. v. Neuberg

140 A.D.2d 690, 528 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260

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

DecidedMay 31, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 690 (Tilden Financial Corp. v. Neuberg) 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

Tilden Financial Corp. v. Neuberg, 140 A.D.2d 690, 528 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted after it made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the defendant failed to establish the existence of a material triable issue of fact regarding his claim that the underlying agreement was not a true lease, but instead constituted a security agreement subject to the provisions of Uniform Commercial Code article 9 (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). In any event, even if it is assumed that the lease constitutes such a security agreement, we note that the guarantee executed by the defendant contains an express waiver of his alleged right to receive proper notice of the sale of the leased equipment pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code § 9-504 (3) (see, e.g., First City Div. v Vitale, 123 AD2d 207).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Fiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted after it made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the defendant failed to establish the existence of a material triable issue of fact regarding his claim that the underlying agreement was not a true lease, but instead constituted a security agreement subject to the provisions of Uniform Commercial Code article 9 (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). In any event, even if it is assumed that the lease constitutes such a security agreement, we note that the guarantee executed by the defendant contains an express waiver of his alleged right to receive proper notice of the sale of the leased equipment pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code § 9-504 (3) (see, e.g., First City Div. v Vitale, 123 AD2d 207).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Fiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 690, 528 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilden-financial-corp-v-neuberg-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack