From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poah One Acquisition Holdings V Ltd. v. Armenta

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 19, 2012
96 A.D.3d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Summary

stating that an absolute and unconditional guaranty, which expressly waived demand or presentment is an "instrument for the payment of money only" within the meaning of CPLR § 3213

Summary of this case from Gamma Pa W. Girard LLC v. Rahn

Opinion

2012-06-19

POAH ONE ACQUISITION HOLDINGS V LIMITED, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Gilbert Richard ARMENTA, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., New York (Charles D. Schmerler of counsel), for appellants. Latham & Watkins LLP, New York (James E. Brandt of counsel), for respondent.



Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., New York (Charles D. Schmerler of counsel), for appellants. Latham & Watkins LLP, New York (James E. Brandt of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, ROMÁN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 8, 2010, which, inter alia, denied defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of standing and failure to state a cause of action, and granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint only as to liability as against defendant Armenta, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment as against Armenta by submitting the guaranty executed by him and an affidavit of nonpayment ( see Bank of Am., N.A. v. Solow, 59 A.D.3d 304, 304–305, 874 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2009],lv. dismissed12 N.Y.3d 877, 883 N.Y.S.2d 172, 910 N.E.2d 1001 [2009] ). Plaintiff appropriately moved based on the absolute and unconditional guaranty, which expressly waived demand or presentment, and is “an instrument for the payment of money only” within the meaning of CPLR 3213 ( see European Am. Bank v. Competition Motors, 182 A.D.2d 67, 71, 586 N.Y.S.2d 816 [1992] ). Defendant's contention that plaintiff did not include an executed copy of the 2008 reaffirmation of the guaranty is insufficient to raise an issue of fact in light of the language of the 2007 executed guaranty. Moreover, defendant's affidavit is equivocal as to his recollection of the execution of the 2008 document.


Summaries of

Poah One Acquisition Holdings V Ltd. v. Armenta

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 19, 2012
96 A.D.3d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

stating that an absolute and unconditional guaranty, which expressly waived demand or presentment is an "instrument for the payment of money only" within the meaning of CPLR § 3213

Summary of this case from Gamma Pa W. Girard LLC v. Rahn
Case details for

Poah One Acquisition Holdings V Ltd. v. Armenta

Case Details

Full title:POAH ONE ACQUISITION HOLDINGS V LIMITED, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Gilbert…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 19, 2012

Citations

96 A.D.3d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
96 A.D.3d 560
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4923

Citing Cases

Torin Assocs., Inc. v. Perez

New York law is clear that under § 3213 an unconditional guarantee is "an instrument for the payment of money…

Taxi Medallion Loan Tr. v. Benson Hacking Corp.

Plaintiff seeks a monetary judgment in each action against defendants, under the Notes and Guarantees, for…