ADCO Electrical Corp. v. Fahey

40 A.D.3d 543, 834 N.Y.S.2d 861

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered July 27, 2006, dismissing the complaint as against defendant Platzer Swergold, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate, in this action for conversion and money had and received, that defendant law firm was not a holder in due course (UCC 3-302 [1]) of the retainer check given to it by nonparty McCann, Inc. as payment for legal services to be rendered (see First Intl. Bank of Israel v Blankstein & Son, 59 NY2d 436 [1983]; Chemical Bank of Rochester v Haskell, 51 NY2d 85 [1980]). This check was drawn on a corporate account, and there was no indication that the law firm had actual knowledge of any defense against it (UCC 3-304 [7]; see Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v American Express Co., 74 NY2d 153,162 [1989]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

ADCO Electrical Corp. v. Fahey, 40 A.D.3d 543, 834 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

40 A.D.3d 543 (ADCO Electrical Corp. v. Fahey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First International Bank of Israel, Ltd. v. L. Blankstein & Son, Inc.
452 N.E.2d 1216 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Chemical Bank v. Haskell
411 N.E.2d 1339 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. American Express Co.
542 N.E.2d 1090 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)