Legal Opinion
Chemical Bank v. Geronimo Auto Parts Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 21, 1996PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The motion court should have granted summary judgment against defendant Edwardo Castillo, since the defense of fraud in the inducement does not lie with reference to a guaranty' which recites that it is absolute and unconditional, valid irrespective of any defense that might be available to the guarantor with respect to it, and that no outside agreements, representations, promises, etc., of any kind exist with regard to *462it (Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90; BNY Fin. Corp. v Clare, 172 AD2d 203). The assertion that this matter falls within an exception to this rule, based upon Edwardo’s…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Citibank, N. A. v. PlapingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Pimpinello v. Swift & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Chemical Bank v. SeplerNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Chemical Bank v. WassermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Chemical Bank v. WassermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of New York v. Clarose Cinema Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- McCaddin v. Southeastern Marine Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2008
- Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. FalorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- General Bank v. Mark II Imports, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- INTL FCStone Mkts., LLC v. Corrib Oil Co. Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019