You are here: / / ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR...
,

ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a written guarantee to pay the debt of another was not enforceable because no consideration for the guarantee was included in the written guarantee. The 2nd Department further held that an oral guarantee would have been enforceable if it was induced by plaintiff’s promise to hold off on bringing suit.  But only plaintiff’s counsel made that argument unsupported by an affidavit from the plaintiff:

… “[N]othing” in the writing supported the plaintiff’s claim that [she] had agreed to “forbear() pursuing a claim” in exchange for the promised payments]). In the absence of such a binding promise by plaintiff, the guaranty is unenforceable for want of consideration. “Unless both parties to a contract are bound, so that either can sue the other for a breach, neither is bound” … . …

Case law has established that an oral promise to guarantee the debt of another may be enforced, notwithstanding General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(2), if the plaintiff “prove[s the promise] is supported by new consideration moving to the promisor and beneficial to him and that the promisor has become in the intention of the parties a principal debtor primarily liable” … . Thus, plaintiff could enforce [the] guaranty if she could prove, through parol evidence, that he gave her the guaranty in exchange for her unwritten promise to forbear from suing him until the due date of the guaranty, which would constitute new consideration beneficial to him. Plaintiff fails, however, to offer any admissible evidence (as opposed to unsupported assertions by her counsel) that she actually made such a promise. Reddy v Mihos, 2018 NY Slip Op 02565, First Dept 4-17-18

​CONTRACT LAW (GUARANTEE, ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CONTRACT LAW, GUARANTEE,  ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/GUARANTEE (CONTRACT LAW, ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/CONSIDERATION (CONTRACT LAW, GUARANTEE,  ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF PASSENGER SUED THE DRIVER WHO STRUCK A CAR FROM BEHIND; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE DRIVER FAILED TO MAINTAIN A SAFE DISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING A GRINDER WHICH DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY GUARD, THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DESPITE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ADMISSION BEFORE THE MOTION COURT THAT HE DID NOT PROPERLY INVESTIGATE THIS MURDER CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE OR THAT THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVENESS MET THE CRITERIA FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).
THE FLOOR OF THE ELEVATOR WHERE PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT OCCURRED IS NOT A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S SLOW MOVING TRUCK FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION, DIFFICULTY SEEING BECAUSE OF SUNLIGHT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A NON-NEGLIGENT EXCUSE (FIRST DEPT).
Quantum Meruit and Unjust Enrichment Causes of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed
NINE OF ELEVEN PROBATION CONDITIONS STRICKEN AS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION, INCLUDING THE CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT PAY THE MANDATORY SURCHARGE AND OTHER FEES (FIRST DEPT).
EXPERT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE ICE RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A HAZARDOUS CONDITION AND NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY... SENTENCING JUDGE’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PRISON SENTENCE...