Garcia v. Lavine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Lavine

41 A.D.2d 817, 342 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4765

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

DecidedApril 10, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 817 (Garcia v. Lavine) 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

Garcia v. Lavine, 41 A.D.2d 817, 342 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the respondent State Commissioner dated February 28, 1972, unanimously annulled, on the law, and the matter remanded to respondent for further proceedings, without costs and without disbursements. After a hearing, respondent determined that a check issued to petitioner and claimed to have been lost was actually cashed by petitioner. The check bore an indorsement and the issue was whether or not this indorsement was in petitioner’s handwriting. We have repeatedly held that in such circum[818]*818stances the record lacks substantial evidence unless it contains, as this record does not, testimony as to the execution of the indorsement either from someone who witnessed the indorsement or from a qualified expert (Matter of Boyd V. Wyman, 39 A D 2d 874; Matter of Diaz v. Wymcm, 41 A D 2d 722). Concur — Markevich, J. P., Kupferman, Lane, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Determination of the respondent State Commissioner dated February 28, 1972, unanimously annulled, on the law, and the matter remanded to respondent for further proceedings, without costs and without disbursements. After a hearing, respondent determined that a check issued to petitioner and claimed to have been lost was actually cashed by petitioner. The check bore an indorsement and the issue was whether or not this indorsement was in petitioner’s handwriting. We have repeatedly held that in such circum[818]*818stances the record lacks substantial evidence unless it contains, as this record does not, testimony as to the execution of the indorsement either from someone who witnessed the indorsement or from a qualified expert (Matter of Boyd V. Wyman, 39 A D 2d 874; Matter of Diaz v. Wymcm, 41 A D 2d 722). Concur — Markevich, J. P., Kupferman, Lane, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 817, 342 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-lavine-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack