A-C Utilities Co. v. Meadow Brook National Bank

New York Supreme Court

A-C Utilities Co. v. Meadow Brook National Bank

37 Misc. 2d 540, 235 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2229

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 Misc. 2d 540 (A-C Utilities Co. v. Meadow Brook National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A-C Utilities Co. v. Meadow Brook National Bank, 37 Misc. 2d 540, 235 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2229 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Thomas P. Farley, J.

Motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment granted.

The defendant admits that it honored a sight draft for $879.52, made, not by the plaintiff but by the Majestic Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp. It does not show that the plaintiff either authorized the execution or presentment of the draft, or that the plaintiff ratified the acts of Majestic.

The defenses of (1) estoppel, and (2) an indebtedness owing by the plaintiff to Majestic in the sum of $879.52 are without substance. In the first place, the defendant admits that payment of the draft was made on January 2,1962, before any notice [541]*541was sent to the plaintiff concerning the unauthorized draft. As to the second defense, the Court of Appeals has said “ Our courts have never permitted a bank in a commercial transaction such as this * * * to involve ” a depositor “ against his will in litigation with a third party in order that the bank may recoup a potential loss resulting from its owii error” (Chase Nat. Bank of City of N. Y. v. Battat, 297 N. Y. 185,190).

Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the sum $879.52 with interest from December 26, 1961, costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Thomas P. Farley, J.

Motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment granted.

The defendant admits that it honored a sight draft for $879.52, made, not by the plaintiff but by the Majestic Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp. It does not show that the plaintiff either authorized the execution or presentment of the draft, or that the plaintiff ratified the acts of Majestic.

The defenses of (1) estoppel, and (2) an indebtedness owing by the plaintiff to Majestic in the sum of $879.52 are without substance. In the first place, the defendant admits that payment of the draft was made on January 2,1962, before any notice [541]*541was sent to the plaintiff concerning the unauthorized draft. As to the second defense, the Court of Appeals has said “ Our courts have never permitted a bank in a commercial transaction such as this * * * to involve ” a depositor “ against his will in litigation with a third party in order that the bank may recoup a potential loss resulting from its owii error” (Chase Nat. Bank of City of N. Y. v. Battat, 297 N. Y. 185,190).

Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the sum $879.52 with interest from December 26, 1961, costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Misc. 2d 540, 235 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-c-utilities-co-v-meadow-brook-national-bank-nysupct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack