From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chemical Bank v. Wasserman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 19, 1975
333 N.E.2d 187 (N.Y. 1975)

Summary

holding that an alleged oral agreement in which officer of plaintiff bank had orally terminated the guaranty could not terminate defendant's obligation as guarantor

Summary of this case from ORIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. BARNES

Opinion

Argued May 5, 1975

Decided June 19, 1975

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, ABRAHAM J. GELLINOFF, J.

Barton Nachamie for appellant.

Harold Weisblatt, William I. Rodier, Jr. and Susan Mae Wanderman for respondent.


MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division granting respondent's motion for summary judgment should be affirmed. In December, 1967 the respondent bank extended a loan to a corporation — the loan being guaranteed by the appellant. The guarantee was continuing in nature and covered not only the 1967 loan but also applied to any subsequent loans made by the bank to the corporation; it also provided that the appellant could terminate her liability thereunder only by written notice to the bank. In January, 1970 the corporation satisfied its indebtedness arising out of the 1967 loan, and in November of the same year the bank made a second loan to the corporation, which subsequently defaulted in payment.

Appellant concedes that in accordance with her prospective guarantee she would ordinarily be liable for the subsequent indebtedness incurred by the corporation. Likewise, she admits that she has never given the appellant the written notice required to terminate her liability as guarantor. However, she contends that her obligations under the 1967 guarantee were orally terminated by an officer of the respondent bank in 1970. As the majority at the Appellate Division concluded, the alleged oral agreement cannot operate to terminate appellant's obligation and does not create a triable issue of fact (General Obligations Law, § 15-301).

Pursuant to section 15-301 (subds 1, 4) of the General Obligations Law, the alleged oral notice is completely ineffectual to terminate appellant's obligations under the written guarantee which here specifically provided that it could not be modified or terminated, unless such modification or termination was communicated to the respondent in writing (see Rothschild v Manufacturers Trust Co., 279 N.Y. 355; Mount Vernon Trust Co. v Bergoff, 272 N.Y. 192; Bay Parkway Nat. Bank v Shalom, 270 N.Y. 172; Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Trans Nat. Communications, 36 A.D.2d 709; Manufacturers Trust Co. v Palmer, 13 A.D.2d 772).

The appellant's reliance on Green v Doniger ( 300 N.Y. 238) is misplaced. In that case, decided under the provisions of section 33-c of the Personal Property Law, this court held only that a provision precluding oral modification would not bar the respondent from proving that by an oral understanding the agreement was abandoned. More specifically, in Green we did not hold that an oral understanding could effectively terminate an agreement requiring termination to be in writing. Moreover, the viability of the distinction recognized in Green has been negated by the enactment of section 15-301 of the General Obligations Law, which precludes both oral modifications and oral terminations.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in memorandum.


Summaries of

Chemical Bank v. Wasserman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 19, 1975
333 N.E.2d 187 (N.Y. 1975)

holding that an alleged oral agreement in which officer of plaintiff bank had orally terminated the guaranty could not terminate defendant's obligation as guarantor

Summary of this case from ORIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. BARNES

noting negation of Green v. Doniger, 300 N.Y. 238, 90 N.E.2d 56, because of enactment of Section 15-301 of the General Obligations Law

Summary of this case from Cary Oil Co. v. MG Refining & Marketing, Inc.

stating that "an oral understanding [cannot] effectively terminate an agreement requiring termination to be in writing" and holding that "section 15 — 301 of the General Obligations Law . . . precludes both oral modifications and oral terminations."

Summary of this case from Cary Oil Co. v. MG Refining & Marketing, Inc.
Case details for

Chemical Bank v. Wasserman

Case Details

Full title:CHEMICAL BANK, Respondent, v. MAXINE WASSERMAN, Appellant, et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 19, 1975

Citations

333 N.E.2d 187 (N.Y. 1975)
333 N.E.2d 187
371 N.Y.S.2d 919

Citing Cases

Milliken and Co. v. Eagle Packaging Co.

N Y Gen. Oblig. Law § 15-301 (McKinney) (1963). These provisions were enforced by New York's highest court in…

Nanuet National Bank v. Rom

Parol evidence cannot be utilized to contradict or vary the express terms of the writing ( National Bank of…