Factory & Mill Supply Co. v. Waller Construction Corp.

44 Misc. 2d 802, 254 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1283
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedNovember 19, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 Misc. 2d 802 (Factory & Mill Supply Co. v. Waller Construction Corp.) 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
Factory & Mill Supply Co. v. Waller Construction Corp., 44 Misc. 2d 802, 254 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As between the plaintiff and Associated Engi-

neers, Inc. (Associated), acceptance by the plaintiff of the defendant’s check in reduction of Associate’s debt to the plaintiff constituted value (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 51). The plaintiff was not a party to any of the transactions between Associated and the defendant nor was it on notice of any infirmity or defense to the check in which, at the instance of Associated, it and Associated are made the payees. Being thus insulated from the defendant, the plaintiff is a holder in due course notwithstanding that it is a payee (Britton, Bills and Notes [2d ed.], § 122; 10 C. J. S., Bills and Notes, § 305, pp. 789-790; Bergstrom v. Ritz-Carlton Rest. & Hotel Co., 171 App. Div. 776, 781, app. dsmd. 220 N. Y. 569; Zanetti v. Malanga, 19 Misc 2d 862). Since Associated was made an additional payee at its request and for its convenience, the plaintiff should not be prejudiced thereby. In essence the plaintiff’s position is the same as if Associated had been the sole payee and the plaintiff the indorsee of the check. The foregoing views being based on the defendant’s own version of the transaction as stated in the answering affidavit of its treasurer, there is no triable issue. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to summary judgment.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Tilzer and Gold, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

Banco Mercantil de Sao Paulo S. A. v. Nava
120 Misc. 2d 517 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Exchange Nat. Bank of Winter Haven v. Beshara
236 So. 2d 198 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 Misc. 2d 802, 254 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/factory-mill-supply-co-v-waller-construction-corp-nyappterm-1964.