Hellenic Republic v. Standard Chartered Bank

244 A.D.2d 240, 664 N.Y.S.2d 434, 36 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 502, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11716
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 20, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 240 (Hellenic Republic v. Standard Chartered Bank) 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
Hellenic Republic v. Standard Chartered Bank, 244 A.D.2d 240, 664 N.Y.S.2d 434, 36 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 502, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J., and a jury), entered September 20, 1996, awarding plaintiff money damages, and bringing up for review a prior order, same court and Justice, entered August 8, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to strike plaintiffs demand for a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since plaintiffs request for relief was, as this Court has previously noted (219 AD2d 498), for money damages, it was entitled to a jury trial (CPLR 4101 [1]), and the trial court appropriately denied defendant’s motion to strike the demand for a jury trial. Moreover, the two interrogatories submitted to the jury were precisely those already found to be the crucial unresolved questions of fact in this action to recover damages for the wrongful dishonor of a standby letter of credit, and nothing in this Court’s opinion in Interchemicals Co. v Bank of [241]*241Credit & Commerce Intl. (222 AD2d 273) can be construed as holding that a bank which processes a draw upon a letter of credit within three banking days has, under any and all circumstances, acted reasonably as a matter of law. Since a letter of credit is an instrument that must be considered separate and apart from the underlying contract (see, First Commercial Bank v Gotham Originals, 64 NY2d 287, 294), the trial court properly precluded defendant from introducing evidence as to plaintiffs actual damages. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Hamilton Bank, N.A. v. Kookmin Bank
44 F. Supp. 2d 653 (S.D. New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 A.D.2d 240, 664 N.Y.S.2d 434, 36 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 502, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hellenic-republic-v-standard-chartered-bank-nyappdiv-1997.