Leyenson v. Lindenbaum

3 Citing cases

  1. Days Inns Worldwide v. Mandir, Inc.

    393 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (W.D. Okla. 2005)   Cited 4 times
    Asserting that a "liquidated damages provision in a contract will be considered a penalty, and therefore unenforceable, if the amount provided for in the provision is 'manifestly disproportionate' to the amount of actual damages suffered."

    Under New York law, "[t]he construction of a contract of guaranty is governed by the same rules as any other contract." Leyenson v. Lindenbaum, 158 N.Y.S. 355, 356 (N.Y.App. Term 1916). Thus, the Guaranty should be "interpreted so as to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the unequivocal language they have employed."

  2. La Mar Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Credit & Commodity Corp.

    28 Misc. 2d 764 (N.Y. City Ct. 1961)   Cited 8 times

    Indeed, an accountant selected by the defendant, its president in fact, was by the terms of such written agreement to audit and supervise the financial affairs of Stylewise. That a guaranty should be liberally construed in context, particularly where, as here, the guarantor prepared it, is demonstrated by the following decisions: Rindge v. Judson ( 24 N.Y. 64) and cases therein considered; Marks v. Cowdin ( 226 N.Y. 138, 142-144); Sun Oil Co. v. Heller ( 248 N.Y. 28); Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. ( 305 N.Y. 48, 55-56); Schinasi v. Lane ( 118 App. Div. 76, affd. 191 N.Y. 545); Herring v. Mali ( 177 App. Div. 820); Steinhardt Bros. Co. v. Marx ( 88 Misc. 26); Leyenson v. Lindenbaum ( 94 Misc. 309) ; Levy v. Margolies ( 152 Misc. 367); Gold v. Smith ( 155 Misc. 221); Cross, Austin Ireland Lbr. Co. v. Gotham Frame Moulding Co. (132 N.Y.S.2d 890). I therefore conclude that the plaintiff has established a continuing guaranty sufficient on its face to comply with the requirements of subdivision 2 of section 31 Pers. Prop. of the Personal Property Law, and that whatever ambiguity there may be has been clarified by evidence of the circumstances attending its execution and performance.

  3. Levy v. Margolies

    152 Misc. 367 (N.Y. Misc. 1934)   Cited 2 times

    The word "account," used by defendant in his letter to plaintiff, imports that the guaranty was for the future. ( Leyenson v. Lindenbaum, 94 Misc. 309.) Harris' limitation of his obligation to $500 was not to any single transaction between plaintiff and Margolies. The words "up to $500" were clearly intended to relate to the amount of Harris' ultimate liability only, and did not restrict the quantity of merchandise plaintiff might deliver to Margolies. The guaranty continued until notice of its withdrawal.