Greenberg v. Bank of Manhattan Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenberg v. Bank of Manhattan Co.

248 A.D. 636

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

DecidedMay 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 636 (Greenberg v. Bank of Manhattan Co.) 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

Greenberg v. Bank of Manhattan Co., 248 A.D. 636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the amount of certain checks alleged to have been paid by respondent upon forged indorsements, order denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike out certain defenses contained in the respondent’s amended answer modified so as to strike out the ninth separate defense, and, as so modified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, with leave to the respondent to serve a new answer containing an amended ninth separate defense, if it be so advised, within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the ninth defense is insufficient because it does not allege knowledge on the part of the plaintiffs that the checks in question were made payable to the order of a fictitious person or that they were intended to be so issued. (Neg. Inst. Law, § 28; Shipman v. Bank S. N. Y., 126 N. Y. 318.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover the amount of certain checks alleged to have been paid by respondent upon forged indorsements, order denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike out certain defenses contained in the respondent’s amended answer modified so as to strike out the ninth separate defense, and, as so modified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, with leave to the respondent to serve a new answer containing an amended ninth separate defense, if it be so advised, within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the ninth defense is insufficient because it does not allege knowledge on the part of the plaintiffs that the checks in question were made payable to the order of a fictitious person or that they were intended to be so issued. (Neg. Inst. Law, § 28; Shipman v. Bank S. N. Y., 126 N. Y. 318.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-bank-of-manhattan-co-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack