Tilden Financial Corp. v. Neuberg
Tilden Financial Corp. v. David Neuberg
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted after it made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the defendant failed to establish the existence of a material triable issue of fact regarding his claim that the underlying agreement was not a true lease, but instead constituted a security agreement subject to the provisions of Uniform Commercial Code article 9 (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 ). In any event, even if it is assumed that the lease constitutes such a security agreement, we note that the guarantee executed by the defendant contains an express waiver of his alleged right to receive proper notice of the sale of the leased equipment pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code § 9-504 (3) (see, e.g., First City Div. v Vitale, 123 AD2d 207 ).
We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Fiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(assuming arguendo that equipment lease secured by personal guarantee was a security agreement subject to U.C.C. § 9-504(3), court would give effect to language in guarantee expressly waiving right to notice of sale of equipment)
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.