Cohen v. Public National Bank

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Public National Bank

123 Misc. 163, 204 N.Y.S. 332, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1292, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9989

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 1, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 123 Misc. 163 (Cohen v. Public National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. Public National Bank, 123 Misc. 163, 204 N.Y.S. 332, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1292, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9989 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Crain, J.

The plaintiff was a depositor in defendant bank. On September 17, 1923, he drew a check on his account payable to the order of one Max Frankel for $810. He dated the check September nineteenth. The complaint alleged that Frankel or some one on his behalf altered the date to the eighteenth and that this alteration was visible on inspection. On the eighteenth Frankel presented the cheek to the defendant for payment and [164]*164payment was refused, the paying teller of the defendant placing his initials on the check. Frankel afterwards transferred the check to one Finkelstein, who, on September twenty-second, presented it again to the defendant and obtained payment on it. The answer admits that the date of the check was altered, admits that when the check was first presented payment was refused; it denies, however, knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Mr. Frankel or some one in his behalf altered the date and denies that the alteration was visible on inspection. Defendant also denied that it had knowledge of illegality either in the inception of the instrument or in any subsequent period of its history or of any informality in the check. Summary judgment was granted in favor of plaintiff for the amount sued for, being the amount of such check. This was improper. Plaintiff’s cause of action depended upon two allegations, namely, first, that some one other than plaintiff made the alteration, and second, that the alteration was visible on inspection. These allegations were put in issue. They could not be disposed of on motion if defendant’s denials putting these allegations in issue were made in good faith. The good faith of the defendant was made to appear by the affidavits of Harry Weiss and Victor Sternberg, defendant’s tellers, and the affidavit of Joseph J. Bach, one of its vice-presidents. .

Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and motion denied.

Bijtjr and McCook, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

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

Crain, J.

The plaintiff was a depositor in defendant bank. On September 17, 1923, he drew a check on his account payable to the order of one Max Frankel for $810. He dated the check September nineteenth. The complaint alleged that Frankel or some one on his behalf altered the date to the eighteenth and that this alteration was visible on inspection. On the eighteenth Frankel presented the cheek to the defendant for payment and [164]*164payment was refused, the paying teller of the defendant placing his initials on the check. Frankel afterwards transferred the check to one Finkelstein, who, on September twenty-second, presented it again to the defendant and obtained payment on it. The answer admits that the date of the check was altered, admits that when the check was first presented payment was refused; it denies, however, knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Mr. Frankel or some one in his behalf altered the date and denies that the alteration was visible on inspection. Defendant also denied that it had knowledge of illegality either in the inception of the instrument or in any subsequent period of its history or of any informality in the check. Summary judgment was granted in favor of plaintiff for the amount sued for, being the amount of such check. This was improper. Plaintiff’s cause of action depended upon two allegations, namely, first, that some one other than plaintiff made the alteration, and second, that the alteration was visible on inspection. These allegations were put in issue. They could not be disposed of on motion if defendant’s denials putting these allegations in issue were made in good faith. The good faith of the defendant was made to appear by the affidavits of Harry Weiss and Victor Sternberg, defendant’s tellers, and the affidavit of Joseph J. Bach, one of its vice-presidents. .

Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and motion denied.

Bijtjr and McCook, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Misc. 163, 204 N.Y.S. 332, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1292, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-public-national-bank-nyappterm-1924.