Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,300+ case briefs...

Chemical Bank v. Meltzer

New York Court of Appeals
712 N.E.2d 656 (N.Y. 1999)


In 1984, the Industrial Development Agency of the Town of Brookhaven, New York (IDA) offered Major Building Products Wholesalers, Inc. favorable financing to encourage Major to build a facility in Brookhaven. IDA issued a $1.1 million bond, which it sold to a bank that eventually merged with Chemical Bank (plaintiff). IDA granted the bank a first mortgage on the property and the facility. IDA took title to the facility and entered a lease agreement for the premises with Major. IDA then assigned the lease to the bank as additional security on the bond. The lease provided that Major would occupy the facility for 15 years and make monthly rent payments to the bank in an amount equal to the monthly principal and interest owed on the bond. Once the bond was fully paid, Major would buy the facility for $1. Major, its principal, and its president, Bruce Meltzer (defendant), also executed a guaranty in which they agreed to guarantee payment on the bond if IDA defaulted. The guaranty provided that Meltzer and the other signatories were each liable to the bank “as a primary obligor and not merely as a surety.” In 1991, the bank made another loan to Major, which it secured through a second mortgage on the facility. Meltzer was not involved in the second mortgage and did not guarantee payment under the second loan. In 1993, Major defaulted on its lease payments, and IDA defaulted on the bond. The bank brought an action against Meltzer and Major to enforce the guaranty. Meltzer offered to tender the full amount due if he could be subrogated to the bank’s rights under the 1984 bond-purchase agreement. The bank refused. Meltzer moved to compel the bank to honor Meltzer’s common-law right of subrogation and assign the bond and first mortgage to him if he paid the full amount due. The trial court held that Meltzer was a guarantor and not a surety, which meant that he did not have a right of subrogation. The Appellate Division affirmed, and Meltzer appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Wesley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 489,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 489,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,300 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial