Goldstein v. Max Rothman Textile Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Max Rothman Textile Corp.

10 Misc. 2d 1033, 170 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2190

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 14, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Misc. 2d 1033 (Goldstein v. Max Rothman Textile 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

Goldstein v. Max Rothman Textile Corp., 10 Misc. 2d 1033, 170 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 in evidence, a letter to defendant giving him notice of dishonor of the trade acceptance, was a sufficient compliance with sections 160 and 161 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. There is no doubt plaintiffs are entitled to recover upon making proper proof of the fact of dishonor, that is, presentment and nonpayment on presentment. [1034]*1034Because of the disappearance of the minutes, and in the light of the record before us, a new trial should be had in the interests of justice.

The order should be reversed, new trial ordered, and judgment vacated, with $30 costs. The appeal from the judgment should be dismissed.

Hofstadter, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Appeal dismissed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 in evidence, a letter to defendant giving him notice of dishonor of the trade acceptance, was a sufficient compliance with sections 160 and 161 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. There is no doubt plaintiffs are entitled to recover upon making proper proof of the fact of dishonor, that is, presentment and nonpayment on presentment. [1034]*1034Because of the disappearance of the minutes, and in the light of the record before us, a new trial should be had in the interests of justice.

The order should be reversed, new trial ordered, and judgment vacated, with $30 costs. The appeal from the judgment should be dismissed.

Hofstadter, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Appeal dismissed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Misc. 2d 1033, 170 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-max-rothman-textile-corp-nyappterm-1957.