Long Island (P) loaned $25,000 to International (D) for a period of 90 days. The promissory note was endorsed by five guarantors. Rochman, one of the guarantors, claims that in a conversation with an officer of P that any renewal of the note would require the same endorsement of the same five individual guarantors. The note was renewed for another 30 days, and an additional $10,000 was loaned. Rochman delivered the new note with his endorsement and told the bank officer to get all the endorsements on the note. One of the original endorsers did not sign the note. P still advanced the monies. The loan was not repaid and P sued the four guarantors. Rochman claimed that his endorsement was conditioned upon procurement of an endorsement from the missing guarantor and that it was not enforceable against them. The trial court granted P summary judgment and the Appellate Division affirmed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.