Tri-Global Management Corp. v. Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tri-Global Management Corp. v. Richardson

303 A.D.2d 674, 756 N.Y.S.2d 776

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 674 (Tri-Global Management Corp. v. Richardson) 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

Tri-Global Management Corp. v. Richardson, 303 A.D.2d 674, 756 N.Y.S.2d 776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover upon a personal guaranty, the defendant Charles Richardson appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 12, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court, dated November 20, 2001, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its first cause of action, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $701,370.93.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[675]*675Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly applied the doctrine of res judicata in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its first cause of action to recover on a personal guaranty (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Facey, 272 AD2d 399 [2000]; Sterling Doubleday Enters, v Marro, 238 AD2d 502 [1997]; Rizzo v Ippolito, 137 AD2d 511 [1988]; see also Ultracashmere House v Kenston Warehousing Corp., 166 AD2d 386 [1990]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions lack merit. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Smith and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover upon a personal guaranty, the defendant Charles Richardson appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 12, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court, dated November 20, 2001, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its first cause of action, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $701,370.93.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[675]*675Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly applied the doctrine of res judicata in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its first cause of action to recover on a personal guaranty (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Facey, 272 AD2d 399 [2000]; Sterling Doubleday Enters, v Marro, 238 AD2d 502 [1997]; Rizzo v Ippolito, 137 AD2d 511 [1988]; see also Ultracashmere House v Kenston Warehousing Corp., 166 AD2d 386 [1990]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions lack merit. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Smith and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 674, 756 N.Y.S.2d 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-global-management-corp-v-richardson-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack