Brogan Cad.-Olds. Corp. v. Cent. Jersey Bk. & Tr

464 A.2d 1141, 190 N.J. Super. 500
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedMay 4, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 464 A.2d 1141 (Brogan Cad.-Olds. Corp. v. Cent. Jersey Bk. & Tr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brogan Cad.-Olds. Corp. v. Cent. Jersey Bk. & Tr, 464 A.2d 1141, 190 N.J. Super. 500 (N.J. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

190 N.J. Super. 500 (1983)
464 A.2d 1141

BROGAN CADILLAC-OLDSMOBILE CORP., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE CENTRAL JERSEY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOSEPH GEORGE MARZENO, A/K/A J. MARIZENA, A/K/A FRANK RUSSO, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued April 19, 1983.
Decided May 4, 1983.

*501 Before Judges MICHELS, PRESSLER and TRAUTWEIN.

Michael J. Sweeney argued the cause for appellant (Cole, Geaney, Yamner & Byrne, attorneys; Peter R. Bray and Michael J. Sweeney on the brief).

J. Peter Sokol argued the cause for the respondent (McOmber & McOmber, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Schwartz' opinion reported at 183 N.J. Super. 333 (Law Div. 1981).

We further note that in the context of this transaction, defendant bank should be held to no higher standard of care than any other business entity whose checks are stolen. The check here was neither a certified check nor a cashier's check, both of which imply a guarantee of payment. Here defendant bank was not the payor of the instrument but only its drawer. Thus, the legal risks inherent in accepting the check here in question were no different than those involved in accepting any other business or personal check.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Kim v. Budget Rent a Car Systems, Inc.
15 P.3d 1283 (Washington Supreme Court, 2001)
Tae Kim v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc.
15 P.3d 1283 (Washington Supreme Court, 2001)
PORT AUTHORITY OF NY AND NJ v. Arcadian Corp.
991 F. Supp. 390 (D. New Jersey, 1997)
Ernst & Co. v. Chemical Bank
209 A.D.2d 241 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Dubin v. Hudson County Probation Dept.
630 A.2d 1207 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1993)
Carnegie Bank v. Shalleck
606 A.2d 389 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
Adam International Trading Ltd. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.
150 A.D.2d 294 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
464 A.2d 1141, 190 N.J. Super. 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brogan-cad-olds-corp-v-cent-jersey-bk-tr-njsuperctappdiv-1983.