From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rhodia, Inc. v. Nat Steel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1969
32 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

June 10, 1969


Order entered December 11, 1968, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion for summary judgment in the sum of $15,817.30 plus interest is granted. The unconditional guarantee is an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213. ( Seaman-Andwall Corp. v. Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136.) The defenses sought to be asserted are insufficient as a matter of law. The defense of economic duress is without factual basis. The defense based on defects in the merchandise sold to the principal debtor is not available to the respondent-guarantor. ( Elliott v. Brady, 192 N.Y. 221.) The documentary evidence establishes the amount of defendant's indebtedness, as well as defendant-respondent's liability therefor. Settle order on notice.

Concur — Eager, J.P., Capozzoli, McGivern, McNally and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

Rhodia, Inc. v. Nat Steel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1969
32 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

Rhodia, Inc. v. Nat Steel

Case Details

Full title:RHODIA, INC., Appellant, v. NAT STEEL, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 10, 1969

Citations

32 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
300 N.Y.S.2d 1005

Citing Cases

Arbor-Myrtle Beach PE LLC v. Frydman

In reply, plaintiff argues that it has successfully established its right to relief pursuant to CPLR 3213 as…

Wagner v. Cornblum

Here, plaintiff's claim is presumptively meritorious. "An instrument for the payment of money only" has been…