Key Bank of Western New York, N. A. v. Kessler Graphics Corp.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from order unanimously dismissed without costs (see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988; Chase Manhattan Bank v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567); judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff seeks to recover damages it incurred as the result of a default on various promissory notes executed by defendant the Kessler Graphics Corporation. Specifically, plaintiff’s complaint refers to three promissory notes. The first note, executed July 27, 1981, obligated Kessler Graphics to repay Bankers Trust Company of Western New York, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, the sum of $150,000 plus interest. Simultaneous with execution of that first note, Kessler Graphics executed a Continuing General Security Agreement whereby Kessler Graphics pledged a security interest in all of its personal property, equipment, inventory, and accounts receivable to plaintiff’s predecessor in interest. The second note referred to in the complaint is a promissory note executed August 26, 1982, under which Kessler Graphics agreed to pay plaintiff’s predecessor in interest the sum of $13,000 plus interest. The third note, dated April 10, 1986, obligated Kessler Graphics to pay plaintiff the sum of $24,500 plus interest. As collateral on that note, defendant Morris Diamond pledged 32,000 shares of stock in defendant Clinical Data, Inc. Kessler Graphics defaulted on each of those notes on June 12, 1986.
While the court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on all counts against defendant Kessler Graphics, it was error to enter judgment against defendant Morris Diamond in the amount of $74,782.93 plus interest, costs, and disbursements. We agree with Supreme Court’s determination that the parties’ submissions on the
The court also erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as against defendant Shirley Diamond. Whether Mrs. Diamond was unjustly enriched by her receipt of the 96,000 shares of Clinical Data stock from her husband is dependent, at least in part, upon the factual question whether Mr. Diamond himself perpetrated a fraud in pledging the 32,000 shares of Clinical Data stock as collateral on the April 1986 note.
We also recognize plaintiff’s concession that the court erred in granting judgment against defendant Amherst Products Sales Corp. and agree that such portion of the judgment must be reversed. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.