Bucci Imports, Ltd. v. Chase Bank International

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bucci Imports, Ltd. v. Chase Bank International

132 A.D.2d 641, 518 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49189

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

DecidedJuly 20, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 A.D.2d 641 (Bucci Imports, Ltd. v. Chase Bank International) 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

Bucci Imports, Ltd. v. Chase Bank International, 132 A.D.2d 641, 518 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of [642]*642the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Widlitz, J.), dated October 1, 1986, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto that, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted to the defendants dismissing the complaint; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants.

We agree with the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for reasons stated in its memorandum decision, that questions of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff presented to the defendant Chase Manhattan Bank International, in a timely fashion, a draft with the required accompanying transport documents for payment upon a letter of credit issued in its favor by that defendant. Therefore, denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was proper. We also find, however, that one of the transport documents presented by the plaintiff named Scottsdale, Arizona, as the place of destination instead of naming, as required by the terms of the letter of credit, Houston, Texas, as the place of destination. Since New York requires strict compliance with the terms of a letter of credit, we find that this was a material inconsistency which justified the refusal to honor the letter of credit and make payment (see, e.g., United Commodities-Greece v Fidelity Intl. Bank, 64 NY2d 449, 455, rearg denied 65 NY2d 923; Beyene v Irving Trust Co., 762 F2d 4; Marino Indus. Corp. v Chase Manhattan Bank, 686 F2d 112, 114-115). Therefore, we now find it appropriate to grant summary judgment to the defendants, as it is within our power to do (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 111-112). Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of [642]*642the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Widlitz, J.), dated October 1, 1986, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto that, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted to the defendants dismissing the complaint; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants.

We agree with the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for reasons stated in its memorandum decision, that questions of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff presented to the defendant Chase Manhattan Bank International, in a timely fashion, a draft with the required accompanying transport documents for payment upon a letter of credit issued in its favor by that defendant. Therefore, denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was proper. We also find, however, that one of the transport documents presented by the plaintiff named Scottsdale, Arizona, as the place of destination instead of naming, as required by the terms of the letter of credit, Houston, Texas, as the place of destination. Since New York requires strict compliance with the terms of a letter of credit, we find that this was a material inconsistency which justified the refusal to honor the letter of credit and make payment (see, e.g., United Commodities-Greece v Fidelity Intl. Bank, 64 NY2d 449, 455, rearg denied 65 NY2d 923; Beyene v Irving Trust Co., 762 F2d 4; Marino Indus. Corp. v Chase Manhattan Bank, 686 F2d 112, 114-115). Therefore, we now find it appropriate to grant summary judgment to the defendants, as it is within our power to do (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 111-112). Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.2d 641, 518 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bucci-imports-ltd-v-chase-bank-international-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack