Val-Ford Realty Corp. v. J.Z.'s Toy World, Inc.

231 A.D.2d 434, 647 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9323
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 17, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 434 (Val-Ford Realty Corp. v. J.Z.'s Toy World, 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
Val-Ford Realty Corp. v. J.Z.'s Toy World, Inc., 231 A.D.2d 434, 647 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about October 26,1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover rent due under a written lease executed by the corporate defendant and guaranteed by the individual defendant. Defendants admit executing these documents, but assert that their purpose was to defraud plaintiff’s construction lender into advancing additional funds and were never intended by the parties to be enforceable, and that the parties are not strangers in that, among other things, the individual defendant is one of the plaintiff corporation’s three directors. We agree with the motion court that this parol evidence offered by defendants raises issues of credibility inappropriate for summary judgment treatment. While parol evi[435]*435dence is generally inadmissible to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of an integrated agreement such as the instant lease and guarantee, it is admissible to show that a " 'writing, although purporting to be a contract, is, in fact, no contract at all’ ” (Greenleaf v Lachman, 216 AD2d 65, 66, lv denied 88 NY2d 802, quoting Richardson, Evidence § 606 [Prince 10th ed]; see also, Paolangeli v Cowles, 208 AD2d 1174). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, William and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Salzstein v. Salzstein
70 A.D.3d 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Polygram Holding, Inc. v. Cafaro
42 A.D.3d 339 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Dayan v. Yurkowski
238 A.D.2d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
231 A.D.2d 434, 647 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/val-ford-realty-corp-v-jzs-toy-world-inc-nyappdiv-1996.