Argon Electrical Corp. v. Capital One, N.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Argon Electrical Corp. v. Capital One, N.A.

2016 NY Slip Op 8945, 145 A.D.3d 634, 42 N.Y.S.3d 817

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 29, 2016

Docket2561 651871/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8945 (Argon Electrical Corp. v. Capital One, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Argon Electrical Corp. v. Capital One, N.A., 2016 NY Slip Op 8945, 145 A.D.3d 634, 42 N.Y.S.3d 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered November 4, 2015, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, and dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff is correct that defendant, who did not have a corporate resolution with regard to signing authority on judgment debtor’s account, lost the protection of Banking Law § 9. However, because there was no evidence of wrongdoing, fraud, forgery or misappropriation of any of the checks at issue, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on its claims of conversion or for money had and received (see Colavito v New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., 8 NY3d 43, 49-50 [2006]; Parsa v State of New York, 64 NY2d 143, 151 [1984]).

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered November 4, 2015, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, and dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff is correct that defendant, who did not have a corporate resolution with regard to signing authority on judgment debtor’s account, lost the protection of Banking Law § 9. However, because there was no evidence of wrongdoing, fraud, forgery or misappropriation of any of the checks at issue, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on its claims of conversion or for money had and received (see Colavito v New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., 8 NY3d 43, 49-50 [2006]; Parsa v State of New York, 64 NY2d 143, 151 [1984]).

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8945, 145 A.D.3d 634, 42 N.Y.S.3d 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/argon-electrical-corp-v-capital-one-na-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack