From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chemical Bank v. Masters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 17, 1991
176 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Summary

In Chemical, as here, Kadosh's writing the word "president" next to his signature did "not evidence an intention to sign in a purely corporate capacity which would, in any event, be inconsistent with the nature of the guaranty" (id.; see, also, Chemical Bank v. Kaufman, 142 A.D.2d 526 [same]).

Summary of this case from PNC Capital Recovery v. Mechanical Parking Systems, Inc.

Opinion

October 17, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.).


Defendant-appellant, Vice Chairperson of the now bankrupt debtor corporation Harvard Knitwear, Inc., executed a guaranty pursuant to which he agreed to guarantee payment of the corporation's liabilities to plaintiff Chemical Bank, "of whatever nature, whether now existing or hereafter incurred." The guaranty states that it is made in consideration for the bank's agreement to extend or continue credit to the corporation. Defendant-appellant signed the guaranty in the column provided for individuals and partners, and not in the column provided for persons signing on behalf of a corporate guarantor. Thus, his inclusion of "V. Chairman" after his signature is merely descriptive, and does not evidence an intention to sign in a purely corporate capacity which would, in any event, be inconsistent with the nature of the guaranty (see, Chemical Bank v. Kaufman, 142 A.D.2d 526).

Defendant's attempt to claim fraud in the inducement is also unpersuasive. The allegations made by the defendant-appellant with respect to the actions and statements of a Citibank employee at the time he signed the guaranty provide no basis for finding a triable issue with respect to defendant's justifiable reliance. In addition, defendant's failure or purported inability to read the guaranty, in the absence of any evidence of coercion, provides no basis for relief, inasmuch as defendant was under an obligation to exercise ordinary diligence to ascertain the terms of the document he signed. (See, Pimpinello v. Swift Co., 253 N.Y. 159, 170; Marine Midland Bank v. Embassy E., 160 A.D.2d 420.)

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Chemical Bank v. Masters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 17, 1991
176 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

In Chemical, as here, Kadosh's writing the word "president" next to his signature did "not evidence an intention to sign in a purely corporate capacity which would, in any event, be inconsistent with the nature of the guaranty" (id.; see, also, Chemical Bank v. Kaufman, 142 A.D.2d 526 [same]).

Summary of this case from PNC Capital Recovery v. Mechanical Parking Systems, Inc.
Case details for

Chemical Bank v. Masters

Case Details

Full title:CHEMICAL BANK, Respondent, v. BRUCE MASTERS, Appellant, et al., Defendants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 17, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
574 N.Y.S.2d 754

Citing Cases

Yardley Travel Ltd. v. Betar

Federal and New York courts have held that an officer cannot negate express terms indicating personal…

Renaissance Corp. v. E. Vil. Pet Grooming Salon

. See PNC Capital Recovery v. Mechanical Parking Sys., 283 A.D.2d 268, 270 (1st Dep't 2001); Marine Midland…