69 A.D.3d 1185
Page 1
69 A.D.3d 1185
(Cite as: 69 A.D.3d 1185, 895 N.Y.S.2d 217)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Copr. (c) 2010, Secretary of State, State of New York
NY,2010.
Overseas Private Inv. Corp. v Nam Koo Kim
69 A.D.3d 1185
Overseas Private Investment Corp. v. Kim
69 A.D.3d 1185, 895 N.Y.S.2d 217
69 A.D.3d 1185
Page 2
69 A.D.3d 1185
(Cite as: 69 A.D.3d 1185, 895 N.Y.S.2d 217)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
payment of the promissory note executed by her husband in connection with the original and restructured loan
agreements. While the wife admits signing the guaranty, she claims that it was her understanding that her exposure
was limited to the value of her interest in real property she owned in Virginia. She denies ever reading or even see–
bore her signature. Given that assertion, defendants argue that a question of fact has been created as to the scope of
the wife’s guaranty and Supreme Court erred by granting plaintiff summary judgment. We do not agree. *1187
A party is entitled to a judgment on a guaranty of a note if it proves that there has been a default on the payment of a
promissory note and the party against whom judgment has been sought has executed a valid guaranty warranting the
terms of her guaranty, is not legally obligated to pay the debt created by the promissory note (see Verela v Citrus
Lake Dev., Inc., 53 AD3d at 575;Hirsh v Brunenkant, 51 AD3d at 1259).
In her defense, the wife argues that when she signed the guaranty she was only provided with the last page of the
agreement and claims to have been told that her liability under the guaranty was limited to the value of her real
and specifically provide that the wife has guarantied full payment of the promissory note. In fact, immediately above
the wife’s signature is an acknowledgment to the effect that she “has received a copy of this Restructured Loan De-
ferral Letter, agrees to all terms and conditions hereof, and confirms that the Personal Guaranty is, and remains, in
full force and effect.” In short, the wife’s contention that it was her understanding that she was providing a limited
commitment in regard to the payment of the promissory note is belied by what is clearly set forth in the document
Nor are we convinced that defendants have made an “evidentiary showing suggesting that completion of discovery
will yield material and relevant evidence,” and that summary judgment should have been denied at this stage of the
action (Zinter Handling, Inc. v Britton, 46 AD3d 998, 1001 [2007]). Specifically, defendants sought to uncover evi-
dence that plaintiff had only provided the wife with a blank signature page of the guaranty agreement and that dif-
ferent versions of the agreement actually exist that would in some way negate the validity of the wife’s guaranty. In
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ application that they be permitted to engage in
additional discovery prior to issuing a decision on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (see Stoian v Reed, 66
AD3d 1278, 1281 [2009]).
69 A.D.3d 1185
Page 3
69 A.D.3d 1185
(Cite as: 69 A.D.3d 1185, 895 N.Y.S.2d 217)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
FOOTNOTES
FN* Majestic Group Korea, Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Majestic Group, Inc. Majestic Group, Inc.
also guarantied the loan.
END OF DOCUMENT
69 A.D.3d 1185
Page 2
69 A.D.3d 1185
(Cite as: 69 A.D.3d 1185, 895 N.Y.S.2d 217)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
payment of the promissory note executed by her husband in connection with the original and restructured loan
agreements. While the wife admits signing the guaranty, she claims that it was her understanding that her exposure
was limited to the value of her interest in real property she owned in Virginia. She denies ever reading or even see–
bore her signature. Given that assertion, defendants argue that a question of fact has been created as to the scope of
the wife’s guaranty and Supreme Court erred by granting plaintiff summary judgment. We do not agree. *1187
A party is entitled to a judgment on a guaranty of a note if it proves that there has been a default on the payment of a
promissory note and the party against whom judgment has been sought has executed a valid guaranty warranting the
terms of her guaranty, is not legally obligated to pay the debt created by the promissory note (see Verela v Citrus
Lake Dev., Inc., 53 AD3d at 575;Hirsh v Brunenkant, 51 AD3d at 1259).
In her defense, the wife argues that when she signed the guaranty she was only provided with the last page of the
agreement and claims to have been told that her liability under the guaranty was limited to the value of her real
and specifically provide that the wife has guarantied full payment of the promissory note. In fact, immediately above
the wife’s signature is an acknowledgment to the effect that she “has received a copy of this Restructured Loan De-
ferral Letter, agrees to all terms and conditions hereof, and confirms that the Personal Guaranty is, and remains, in
full force and effect.” In short, the wife’s contention that it was her understanding that she was providing a limited
commitment in regard to the payment of the promissory note is belied by what is clearly set forth in the document
Nor are we convinced that defendants have made an “evidentiary showing suggesting that completion of discovery
will yield material and relevant evidence,” and that summary judgment should have been denied at this stage of the
action (Zinter Handling, Inc. v Britton, 46 AD3d 998, 1001 [2007]). Specifically, defendants sought to uncover evi-
dence that plaintiff had only provided the wife with a blank signature page of the guaranty agreement and that dif-
ferent versions of the agreement actually exist that would in some way negate the validity of the wife’s guaranty. In
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ application that they be permitted to engage in
additional discovery prior to issuing a decision on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (see Stoian v Reed, 66
AD3d 1278, 1281 [2009]).
69 A.D.3d 1185
Page 3
69 A.D.3d 1185
(Cite as: 69 A.D.3d 1185, 895 N.Y.S.2d 217)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
FOOTNOTES
FN* Majestic Group Korea, Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Majestic Group, Inc. Majestic Group, Inc.
also guarantied the loan.
END OF DOCUMENT