From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Metal v. Esmark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 11, 2008
49 A.D.3d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 3038.

March 11, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered October 26, 2007, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Dewey LeBoeuf LLP, New York (Jonathan D. Siegfried of counsel), for appellant.

McGuire Woods LLP, New York (Richard L. Jarashow of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.


Plaintiff has not established its prima facie entitlement to accelerated judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213. Its claim, based on a guaranty, requires resort to external documents, since the guarantor guaranteed the punctual payment when due of all payment obligations pursuant to each purchase order and payment of the guaranteed obligations strictly in accordance with the terms of each purchase order, and the purchase orders required that invoices be issued, that the goods furnished be of good quality, and that any discrepancies be resolved prior to invoicing ( see Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437, 444; Tradition N. Am. v Sweeney, 133 AD2d 53, 53-54).

In any event, despite all the documents submitted by plaintiff, a clear issue of fact exists as to the quantum of damages due under the guaranty, as to which plaintiff bears the burden of proof ( see J.R. Loftus, Inc. v White, 85 NY2d 874, 877).


Summaries of

Metal v. Esmark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 11, 2008
49 A.D.3d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Metal v. Esmark

Case Details

Full title:METAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant, v. ESMARK INCORPORATED et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2032
854 N.Y.S.2d 6

Citing Cases

Leigh Lombardi Family Trust v. Brush

Although the guaranty was emailed to his Blackberry phone, he contends that he was unable to open, review or…

Kaplan v. United States Coal Corp.

The instrument does not qualify if outside proof is needed, other than simple proof of nonpayment or a…