United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc.

290 A.D.2d 504, 736 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 590

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 504 (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc.) 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

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 290 A.D.2d 504, 736 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the obligations of the parties pursuant to a certain undertaking agreement, the defendant Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated November 29, 2000, as failed to award it interest from May 14, 1998.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that a surety’s obligation is strictly construed and cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the contract (see, Becker v Faber, 280 NY 146, 149; Mid-State Precast Sys. v Corbetta Constr. Co., 202 AD2d 702; Mendel-Mesick-Cohen-Architects v Peerless Ins. Co., 74 AD2d 712). Since the undertaking in this case did not obligate the plaintiff surety to pay interest which accrued prior to its default, the Supreme Court properly determined that the appellant was not entitled to such interest from the plaintiff (cf., Mid-State Precast Sys. v Corbetta Constr. Co., supra; U.S. Capital Ins. Co. v Buffalo & Erie County Regional Dev. Corp., 177 AD2d 949). Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the obligations of the parties pursuant to a certain undertaking agreement, the defendant Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated November 29, 2000, as failed to award it interest from May 14, 1998.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that a surety’s obligation is strictly construed and cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the contract (see, Becker v Faber, 280 NY 146, 149; Mid-State Precast Sys. v Corbetta Constr. Co., 202 AD2d 702; Mendel-Mesick-Cohen-Architects v Peerless Ins. Co., 74 AD2d 712). Since the undertaking in this case did not obligate the plaintiff surety to pay interest which accrued prior to its default, the Supreme Court properly determined that the appellant was not entitled to such interest from the plaintiff (cf., Mid-State Precast Sys. v Corbetta Constr. Co., supra; U.S. Capital Ins. Co. v Buffalo & Erie County Regional Dev. Corp., 177 AD2d 949). Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 504, 736 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-orix-credit-alliance-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack