Summary
In Movado Group, the court held that "Defendant's promise to pay all of his company's debts to plaintiff on an `absolute, unconditional and continuing' basis, in consideration for extension of credit, was a broad commitment, certainly not limited to one opening transaction, as defendant would read it.
Summary of this case from Rheem Manufacturing v. Progressive WhsleOpinion
March 23, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).
An extension of credit is ample consideration for the execution of a guaranty ( Sun Oil Co. v. Heller, 248 N.Y. 28; First Am. Bank v. Builders Funding Corp., 200 A.D.2d 946, 948). Defendant's promise to pay all of his company's debts to plaintiff on an "absolute, unconditional and continuing" basis, in consideration for extension of credit, was a broad commitment, certainly not limited to one opening transaction, as defendant would read it. Such a written expression of Past consideration satisfies General Obligations Law § 5-1105 ( see, Bellevue Bldrs. Supply v. Audubon Quality Homes, 213 A.D.2d 824, 825-826; American Bank Trust Co. v. Lichtenstein, 48 A.D.2d 790, affd 39 N.Y.2d 857).
The reference in the agreement to the terms of payment on the "opening order" is separate from, and therefore extraneous to, the guaranty provision. Parol evidence is inadmissible as an aid in construing a guaranty as clear, and unambiguous as this one ( see, McShane Co. v. Padian, 142 N.Y. 207). Since no material issues of fact exist concerning the scope and extent of defendant's personal guaranty, plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment.
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.