Weissman v. Sinorm Deli
88 N.Y.2d 437 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 412 times 6 Legal AnalysesCharacterizing a guaranty as a "contract of secondary liability" thus requiring a guarantor "to make payment only when the primary obligor has first defaulted."
Wallace v. 600 Partners Co.
86 N.Y.2d 543 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 359 times 3 Legal AnalysesExplaining that "[t]he rules governing the construction of ambiguous contracts are not triggered unless the court first finds an ambiguity"
Citibank v. Plapinger
66 N.Y.2d 90 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 450 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that although guarantors submitted sufficient evidence to support finding they signed guaranty in reliance on false statement bank was "committed to extend[ing] to the [borrower] an additional line of credit," guarantors' defense was foreclosed by language in guaranty providing that guarantors' obligations were "absolute and unconditional" irrespective of any "circumstance which might otherwise constitute a defense"
Red Tulip v. Neiva
44 A.D.3d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 146 timesHolding "absolute and unconditional" guaranty which "absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably" waived right to assert "any defense, set-off, counterclaim or cross claim of any nature whatsoever with respect to this guaranty," except the defense of actual payment, waived all counterclaims and defenses
Laba v. Carey
29 N.Y.2d 302 (N.Y. 1971) Cited 185 timesHolding that a court must interpret a contract to give each provision its full force and effect
Bank of America v. Solow
59 A.D.3d 304 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 49 timesFebruary 24, 2009. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered June 12, 2008, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $15,910,000, on a guarantee, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 18, 2008, which granted plaintiffs CPLR 3213 motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint on the aforementioned guarantee and denied defendant's cross motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously
Compagnie Financiere v. Merrill Lynch
188 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 64 times 1 Legal AnalysesUpholding a guarantee even though underlying obligation of debtor had been discharged
4 USS LLC v. DSW MS LLC
120 A.D.3d 1049 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) Cited 31 times2014-09-11 4 USS LLC, as successor in interest to 40 East 14 Realty Associates LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. DSW MS LLC, as successor in interest to Retail Ventures, Inc., Defendant–Respondent. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York (Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York (Daniel B. Rapport of counsel), for respondent. SAXE Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York (Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP
Sterling v. Biaggi
47 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 33 timesNo. 2506. January 10, 2008. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 5, 2006, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff bank's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on its breach of guaranty cause of action against defendant Biaggi and dismissed Biaggi's affirmative defenses and counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Biaggi Biaggi, New York, Mario J. Biaggi, Jr., appellant pro se. Kaplan Levenson, P.C., New York (Scott
Wharf v. Merrill Lynch Cap. Corp.
40 A.D.3d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 18 timesMay 29, 2007. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz J.), entered on or about August 7, 2006, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (3) and (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs. Before: Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ. The first cause of action was properly dismissed. As the motion court found, the clear meaning of section 4.05 (e) of the stock purchase agreement is that defendant would pay 6.377% of the