Opinion
February 25, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
Defendant's allegations that he orally requested plaintiff to sell the stock it held as collateral at a time when the stock still had; value are unsubstantiated. Moreover, they are inconsistent with the fact that during and shortly after the purported conversations, agreements to extend the loan generated correspondence from both sides that never mentioned the collateral, and are also inconsistent with the fact that after defendant again fell into default, he did not object to plaintiff's letter indicating, in another apparent effort to accommodate him, that it would hold onto the collateral pursuant to his request. In sum, defendant's papers are utterly insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness of plaintiff's treatment of the collateral ( cf., IBJ Schroeder Bank Trust Co. v. Kerney, 200 A.D.2d 519).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardeili, Wallach and Tom, JJ.