§Why CasetextPricing

Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A.,, Respondent,v.Francisco Javier Herrera Navarro, Appellant, The Estate of Eduardo Guzman Solis, Defendant.

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Citibank v. Plapinger

    66 N.Y.2d 90 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 450 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  2. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Yanakas

    7 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 219 times
    Holding that a “generalized boilerplate” merger clause was insufficient to waive a claim for fraudulent inducement because the contract “contains no disclaimer as to the validity, regularity, or enforceability of the [contract] itself.”

  3. Red Tulip v. Neiva

    44 A.D.3d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 146 times
    Holding "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

  4. Pike v. New York Life Ins. Co.

    72 A.D.3d 1043 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations where plaintiff did not point to any specific wrong that occurred each time an insurance premium was paid

  5. Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Falor

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1348 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 112 times
    Holding that defendants' "precarious financial condition" and the lack of marketability of their property interests warranted the appointment of a receiver

  6. Jpmorgan Chase Bank v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

    189 F. Supp. 2d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that a broad disclaimer does not preclude the defenses of fraudulent inducement or fraudulent concealment

  7. Banco do Estado de Sao Paulo S.A. v. Mendes Junior International Co.

    249 A.D.2d 137 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that the defendants were barred from asserting any affirmative defenses, including fraudulent inducement and duress, by the provision that the guaranty was enforceable "irrespective of...any other circumstances which might constitute a defense"

  8. North Fork Bank v. ABC Merchant Services, Inc.

    49 A.D.3d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 28 times

    No. 2007-02534. March 18, 2008. In an action to recover on a promissory note and guaranty brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant Ronald Christopher appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated December 8, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion which was to recover on the guaranty against him. Ronald Christopher, Jersey City, N.J., appellant pro se. Porzio, Bromberg Newman

  9. 627 Acquisition Co., LLC v. 627 Greenwich, LLC

    85 A.D.3d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 21 times
    In Acquisition Company, LLC v 627 Greenwich, LLC (85 AD3d 645, 927 NYS2d 23 [1st Dept 2011]), the assignment was invalidated on the ground that the purported assignees entirely failed to submit documents of assignment as was required by the building loan agreement between the borrower and the first assignee. And, Flyer v Sullivan (284 AD 697, 134 NYS2d 521 [1st Dept 1954]) does not recite facts and merely stands for the proposition that a note and mortgage may be transferred by physical delivery without a written instrument of assignment.

  10. Canterbury Realty v. Sav. Bank

    135 A.D.2d 102 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that "an issue of fact was presented as to whether the Bank unfairly brought about the occurrence of the very condition precedent ([plaintiff's] suspension of business) upon which it relied to accelerate the loan"

  11. Section 521 - Adverse possession not under written instrument or judgment

    N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 521   Cited 69 times

    Where there has been an actual continued occupation of premises under a claim of right, exclusive of any other right, but not founded upon a written instrument or a judgment or decree, the premises so actually occupied, and no others, are deemed to have been held adversely. N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 521