face, the Goodridge decision does not help Guarantors.
Moreover, Goodridge itself is at odds with Plapinger (which was handed down by a higher court) and has been discredited in subsequent cases. The issues before the Goodridge court proceeded to judgment in federal district court, sub nom., Goodridge v. Harvey Group, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). The federal court ruled therein that, according to Plapinger, the guarantor's defense of fraudulent inducement had in fact been waived by virtue of the guaranty's disclaimer. Indeed, the district court cited the disclaimer more fully than had the New York state court, revealing that the waiver at issue closely resembled the waiver in Plapinger (and the waiver here). There was therefore no basis to distinguish Goodridge from Plapinger.6 See also Generale Bank v. Wassel, 779 F. Supp. 310, 317-19 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (given the sweeping application that Plapinger has been given by New York courts, Goodridge does not serve as good precedent).
The rule of Plapinger remains in full force. Id.
A general, unconditional guaranty suffices to waive specific defenses such as fraudulent inducement. Guarantors are accordingly barred from raising defenses of fraudulent inducement and economic duress, and JWP is entitled to summary judgment.
An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 1992, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion for summary judgment on the counter-claim filed by JWP Credit Corp. is GRANTED.
2. Summary judgment is ENTERED in favor of defendant JWP Credit Corp. and against plaintiffs James Christensen, Stephen Christensen, F. Lavar Christensen, James Hamel, and Jerry Hamel, in the amount of $ 525,451.31, with interest thereon at 15% beginning May 19, 1992, plus reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in defending against Count VI of the Amended Complaint and in pressing the counter-claim.
3. Count VI of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED as to defendant JWP Credit Corp pursuant to the above memorandum.
4. Counts I-V are DISMISSED without prejudice, as the claims advanced therein are being heard by the American Arbitration Association in Case No. 14 110 0006 92 C/J.
5. This matter is marked CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
JAMES T. GILIS