From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Terminal Marketing Company v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 2002
296 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-05896

Submitted May 23, 2002

July 1, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover on a guarantee brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant Raymond J. Murphy appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered May 16, 2001, which granted the motion.

Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon Frank, P.C., New City, N.Y. (Richard H. Sarajian of counsel), for appellant.

Jenkens Gilchrist Parker Chapin, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Daniel S. Greenfeld of counsel), for respondent.

ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to a guaranty dated July 5, 2000, the defendant Raymond J. Murphy (hereinafter the defendant) absolutely and unconditionally guaranteed the full and unconditional payment of all obligations under a lease. The lessee failed to make the monthly payments for October and November of 2000. As a result, the plaintiff terminated the lease and sought payment for the remainder of the lease amounts as well as applicable late fees.

The plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing the material elements necessary to recover judgment on the guarantee (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320). In response, the defendant presented only conclusory statements and unsubstantiated allegations concerning alleged alterations to the first page of the guarantee, which are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Orix Credit Alliance v. Grace Industries, 232 A.D.2d 464). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint as against the defendant.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Terminal Marketing Company v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 2002
296 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Terminal Marketing Company v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:TERMINAL MARKETING COMPANY, INC., respondent, v. RAYMOND J. MURPHY…

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

Date published: Jul 1, 2002

Citations

296 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
745 N.Y.S.2d 443

Citing Cases

Whitestone Plaza, LLC v. You Lin Shen

"'A defendant can defeat a CPLR 3213 motion by offering evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a triable issue…

Street Retail, Inc. v. CVS Fresh Meadows, L.L.C.

Defendants, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of…