Legal Opinion

Tilden Financial Corp. v. Muffoletto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 23, 1988PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

The defendant alleges that he did not execute the guarantee in question and that he was away on business at the time of the alleged execution. The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment since there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant executed the guarantee (see, Keh Soo Park v White Eng’g Corp., 99 AD2d 719; Langford v Cameron, 73 AD2d 1001, 81 AD2d 720; Himan v King Bear Auto Serv. Centers, 62 AD2d 1010; Armstrong Rubber Co. v Autotransformation, Inc., 61 AD2d 1129). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Langford v. CameronAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  2. Keh Soo Park v. J. G. White Engineering Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  3. Himan v. King Bear Auto Service Centers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
  4. Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Autotransformation, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
  5. Langford v. CameronAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Barclays Bank of New York, National Ass'n v. JaoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994