Case ID: ad2d_207/html/0261-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Middle East Bank, New York Branch, Respondent, v Piquante Sportswear, Inc., Defendant, and Arun C. Sarkar, Appellant.
    [615 NYS2d 994]
   —Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen G. Crane, J.), entered April 26, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against defendant-appellant guarantor on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant’s assertion that plaintiff told him that the instrument sued upon was not a guarantee but a security agreement replacing another that plaintiff had misplaced did not raise a genuine issue whether appellant had been fraudulently misled into signing the guarantee. Appellant is an experienced businessperson familiar with bank security agreements, and the word “guaranty” appears many times on the document in question. As the IAS Court found, the fact issue appellant would raise can only be viewed as "feigned”. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.