B. W. Dyer & Co. v. Monitz, Wallack & Colodney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

B. W. Dyer & Co. v. Monitz, Wallack & Colodney

12 A.D.2d 756, 215 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12996

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 756 (B. W. Dyer & Co. v. Monitz, Wallack & Colodney) 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

B. W. Dyer & Co. v. Monitz, Wallack & Colodney, 12 A.D.2d 756, 215 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by appellants for reargument of appeal or for a modification of this court’s decision denied. The trial court, upon sufficient evidence, found that the particular item of $23,000 was “subsequently reduced to $6,500 by repayments totaling $9,000 received from Skrod & Company and a retransfer of $7,500 from the futures into the pledge account.” Cross motion by defendant-respondent for rehearing of appeal or, in the alternative, for the withdrawing of this court’s decision and, in lieu thereof, the directing of an affirmance of judgment below, denied. It is clear that defendant Monitz, Wallack & Colodney was not a pledgee in good faith and for value with respect to the item of $23,000 (reduced to $6,500). In addition to what was said in this court’s memorandum opinion, it is to be noted that, at time of transfer of this sum to the futures trading account of Skrod, substantial losses were being sustained in connection with such account; and a member of defendant’s firm testified that transfers were made from corporate accounts to Skrod’s personal or futures accounts when the latter were short. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Motion by appellants for reargument of appeal or for a modification of this court’s decision denied. The trial court, upon sufficient evidence, found that the particular item of $23,000 was “subsequently reduced to $6,500 by repayments totaling $9,000 received from Skrod & Company and a retransfer of $7,500 from the futures into the pledge account.” Cross motion by defendant-respondent for rehearing of appeal or, in the alternative, for the withdrawing of this court’s decision and, in lieu thereof, the directing of an affirmance of judgment below, denied. It is clear that defendant Monitz, Wallack & Colodney was not a pledgee in good faith and for value with respect to the item of $23,000 (reduced to $6,500). In addition to what was said in this court’s memorandum opinion, it is to be noted that, at time of transfer of this sum to the futures trading account of Skrod, substantial losses were being sustained in connection with such account; and a member of defendant’s firm testified that transfers were made from corporate accounts to Skrod’s personal or futures accounts when the latter were short. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 756, 215 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-w-dyer-co-v-monitz-wallack-colodney-nyappdiv-1961.