Franklin National Bank v. Ives

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franklin National Bank v. Ives

27 A.D.2d 744, 277 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4815

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 20, 1967·Published

Opinion

Resettled judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 23, 1965, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, there are triable fact issues, barring summary judgment, as to (a) whether there was a secret preference given to plaintiff’s assignor and (b) whether the preference, secret or not, was obtained by duress. If there was such secret preference, it would be void and inoperative (Solinger v. Earle, 82 N. Y. 393; White v. Kuntz, 107 N. Y. 518; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Blake, 142 N. Y. 404). If the preference was not secret, but was obtained by duress, it would be voidable (Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v. Hastings Terraces, 284 App. Div. 966; see, also, J. M. Deutsch, Inc. v. Robert Paper Co., 13 A D 2d 768); and the further question would then arise as to whether defendants had ratified it by their subsequent conduct. Brennan, Acting P. J.) Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Resettled judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 23, 1965, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, there are triable fact issues, barring summary judgment, as to (a) whether there was a secret preference given to plaintiff’s assignor and (b) whether the preference, secret or not, was obtained by duress. If there was such secret preference, it would be void and inoperative (Solinger v. Earle, 82 N. Y. 393; White v. Kuntz, 107 N. Y. 518; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Blake, 142 N. Y. 404). If the preference was not secret, but was obtained by duress, it would be voidable (Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v. Hastings Terraces, 284 App. Div. 966; see, also, J. M. Deutsch, Inc. v. Robert Paper Co., 13 A D 2d 768); and the further question would then arise as to whether defendants had ratified it by their subsequent conduct. Brennan, Acting P. J.) Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Franklin National Bank v. Ives, 27 A.D.2d 744, 277 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

27 A.D.2d 744 (Franklin National Bank v. Ives) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related