From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tilden Financial Corp. v. Muffoletto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1988
140 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

May 23, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The defendant alleges that he did not execute the guarantee in question and that he was away on business at the time of the alleged execution. The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment since there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant executed the guarantee (see, Keh Soo Park v White Eng'g Corp., 99 A.D.2d 719; Langford v Cameron, 73 A.D.2d 1001, 81 A.D.2d 720; Himan v King Bear Auto Serv. Centers, 62 A.D.2d 1010; Armstrong Rubber Co. v Autotransformation, Inc., 61 A.D.2d 1129). Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tilden Financial Corp. v. Muffoletto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1988
140 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Tilden Financial Corp. v. Muffoletto

Case Details

Full title:TILDEN FINANCIAL CORP., Respondent, v. RICHARD MUFFOLETTO, Appellant

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

Date published: May 23, 1988

Citations

140 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Barclays Bank of New York, National Ass'n v. Jao

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant…