Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joseph POLLINA, etc., appellant-respondent, v. Jacqueline BLATT, respondent-appellant, et al., defendant.
In an action to recover payment on a guarantee of a mortgage note, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated March 27, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment against the defendant Jacqueline Blatt, and the defendant Jacqueline Blatt cross-appeals from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike her affirmative defenses and denied her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.
A guarantee is a separate undertaking and may impose lesser or greater collateral responsibility on the guarantor (see, American Trading Co. v. Fish, 42 N.Y.2d 20, 26, 396 N.Y.S.2d 617, 364 N.E.2d 1309). Contrary to the contentions of the defendant Jacqueline Blatt, she executed an unqualified guarantee, which made her personally liable for the note made by her partnership, 400 West Broadway Associates (see, Anderson Credit & Leasing Corp. v. McEvoy, 236 A.D.2d 569, 570, 654 N.Y.S.2d 32; Beal Bank v. Sandpiper Resort Corp., 251 A.D.2d 360, 674 N.Y.S.2d 83). The plaintiff established a prima facie case by proffering admissible evidence that Jacqueline Blatt personally guaranteed the note and the note was in default. In opposition, Jacqueline Blatt failed to come forward with sufficient evidentiary proof to raise a triable issue of fact (see, European Am. Bank v. Syosset Autorama, 204 A.D.2d 266, 611 N.Y.S.2d 585). Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.
The remaining contentions of the defendant Jacqueline Blatt are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 07, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)