New York Court of Appeals, 1981

Slavenburg Corp. v. Opus Apparel, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 28, 1981

53 N.Y.2d 799; 422 N.E.2d 570; 439 N.Y.S.2d 910; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2385

Cases that cite this one

25 later published cases cite this decision.

Kallo v. Kane St. Synagogue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Cooper v. Guilor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Avigdor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Langner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Pollack v. Ovadia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
People v. Eisenstadt (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Diaz v. Tumbiolo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Diaz v. Tumbiolo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Ogman v. Mastrantonio Catering, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
John Harris P.C. v. Krauss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Nazario v. Ciafone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Zeichner v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District (New York Supreme Court 2009)
LaRusso v. Katz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Pampalone v. Giant Building Maintenance, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Samuel & Weininger v. Belovin & Franzblau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Seven Acre Wood Street Associates, Inc. v. Town of Bedford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Pisacreta v. Minniti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
M.P. Development v. Malone Economic Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
United Talmudical Academy of Kiryas Joel v. Khal Bais Halevi Religious Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Morrison v. Hindley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Lauer v. Rapp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Majestic Farms Supply, Ltd. v. Surowiec (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Board of Managers of Ocean Terrace Towne House Condominium v. Lent (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Rubenstein v. Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center (New York Supreme Court 1988)
W. W. Norton & Co. v. Roslyn Targ Literary Agency, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the order and the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated. The question certified should be answered in the negative.

We agree with the dissenter in the Appellate Division that the guarantee agreement signed by defendant Kestenbaum was so broad as to encompass the subsequent letter agreement between plaintiff and Nu-Ka-Pool Apparel, Inc., and that the subsequent execution of that agreement did not release him from his personal guarantee. Defendant’s conclusory allegation that the corporate officer who entered into the agreement on behalf of Nu-Ka-Pool was without authority to do so is insufficient to raise a question of fact *801on this issue. Indeed, none of defendant’s contentions on this appeal are supported by evidentiary facts sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.* Thus, in our view, Special Term properly granted summary judgment to plaintiff, and properly denied defendant’s motion to serve an amended answer.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Waghtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

We note that the affirmation of defendant Kestenbaum, upon which he heavily relies, is not in an authorized form. Only an attorney, physician, osteopath or dentist authorized to practice within this State can serve and file an affirmation bearing his signature alone in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit. (CPLR 2106.) Moreover, even those persons who are statutorily allowed to use such affirmations cannot do so when they are a party to an action. (See Schutzer v Suss-Kolyer, 57 AD2d 613.) It is also true, of course, that any person who, for religious or other reasons, wishes to use an affirmation as an alternative to a sworn statement may do so. However, to be effective such an affirmation must be made before a notary public or other authorized official. (CPLR 2309.) Otherwise, the affirmation would be of no probative value because the affirmant would not be answerable for the crime of perjury should he make a false statement. (Penal Law, § 210.00, subd 1.)

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.