From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schmitz v. MacDonald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 26, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).


The IAS Court properly awarded plaintiff summary judgment upon the subject non-negotiable promissory note. There is no indication on the face of the note that defendant signed it in a representative capacity, and he is, accordingly, personally liable for payment of the note ( see, Republic Natl. Bank v. GSO Inc., 177 A.D.2d 417, 418). While the fact that a signatory's name appears without reference to corporate representation is not always dispositive, here, in distinction to the cases upon which defendant-appellant relies ( see, e.g., Shoenthal v. Bernstein, 276 App. Div. 200), the contract on its face is not ambiguous as to whether it is one made for a corporate principal. Moreover, because the note evidencing defendant-appellants personal obligation is clear and unambiguous on its face, his attempted resort to parol evidence was properly rejected by the IAS Court ( see, W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 163).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Schmitz v. MacDonald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Schmitz v. MacDonald

Case Details

Full title:HELEN D. SCHMITZ, as Executrix of RICHARD D. SCHMITZ, Deceased…

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

Date published: May 26, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 426

Citing Cases

Santana v. Graubard

The ambiguous nature of this agreement allows this Court to consider parol evidence to determine the intent…

Samet v. Binson

Also, defendant correctly notes that the alleged note "does not state that defendant received funds from…