Bank of Am., N.A. v Integrated Constr. Mgt., Inc.

Annotate this Case
Bank of Am., N.A. v Integrated Constr. Mgt., Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 08881 [78 AD3d 1092] November 30, 2010 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Bank of America, N.A., Successor by Merger to Fleet National Bank, Respondent,
v
Integrated Construction Management, Inc., Defendant, and Roger Rowe, Appellant.

—[*1] Roger Rowe, Amityville, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Moritt Hock Hamroff & Horowitz LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Lee J. Mendelson of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover on a promissory note and a guarantee, the defendant Roger Rowe appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated September 22, 2009, which denied his motion to stay, as against him, enforcement of a judgment of the same court entered March 9, 2009, in favor of the plaintiff and against him and the defendant Integrated Construction Management, Inc., jointly and severally, in the principal sum of $310,985.22.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion to stay, as against him, the enforcement of a judgment entered against him and the defendant Integrated Construction Management, Inc. (hereinafter ICM), a corporation of which he was president. Contrary to the appellant's contention, ICM's filing of a bankruptcy petition did not affect his personal liability under a guarantee of a promissory note he executed on behalf of ICM (see Mel Wood Prods. v Kores, 81 AD2d 830 [1981]; Seidenberg v Ostojic, 79 AD2d 1020 [1981]; cf. Fleet Natl. Bank v Marrazzo, 23 AD3d 337 [2005]).

The appellant's contentions concerning the timeliness of the plaintiff's submission of a proposed judgment to the Supreme Court for settlement and signature, and the amount of interest on the judgment, are not properly before this Court, as they were improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.