From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oak Beverages, Inc. v. Ehrlich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 5, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and properly denied the appellant's cross motion for summary judgment. The appellant signed a continuing guaranty that "is in the nature of a continuing offer to guarantee a series of debts" (see, Delaware Funds v. Zuckerman-Honickman, Inc., 43 A.D.2d 889; see also, Brewster Tr. Mix Corp. v. McLean, 169 A.D.2d 1036) and never revoked the guaranty to the creditor. Thus, upon the default of the debtor, the appellant, as the guarantor, is liable for payment on the debt (see, Chemical Bank v. Wasserman, 37 N.Y.2d 249; Brewster Tr. Mix Corp. v. McLean, supra; see also, Chemical Bank v. Sepler, 60 N.Y.2d 289; USI Capital Leasing v Chertock, 172 A.D.2d 235). Rosenblatt, J.P., Hart, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Oak Beverages, Inc. v. Ehrlich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Oak Beverages, Inc. v. Ehrlich

Case Details

Full title:OAK BEVERAGES, INC., Respondent, v. IRVING EHRLICH, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 758

Citing Cases

Signature Bank v. Topline Contracting, Inc.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on…

Suffolk Cement v. Empire Concrete

The appellant has admitted to his signature on the guaranty and does not dispute that Empire defaulted on the…