Illuminations by Arnold, Inc. v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Illuminations by Arnold, Inc. v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico

305 A.D.2d 372, 757 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5112

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

DecidedMay 5, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 372 (Illuminations by Arnold, Inc. v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico) 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

Illuminations by Arnold, Inc. v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico, 305 A.D.2d 372, 757 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent and improper payment of checks, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated March 27, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant Island Check Cashing Corp., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Island Check Cashing Corp. (hereinafter Island) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action sounding in negligence against Island.

Even if there was a duty owed to the plaintiff by Island based on the cashing of the subject checks, UCC 3-405 (1) (c), the “fictitious payee rule,” bars any claim alleging negligence against Island since the indorsements on the subject checks were effective and there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of Island in cashing them (see UCC 3-405 [1] [b]; Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v Chemical Bank, 94 NY2d 418 [2000]; Getty Petroleum Corp. v American Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 90 NY2d 322 [1997]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent and improper payment of checks, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated March 27, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant Island Check Cashing Corp., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Island Check Cashing Corp. (hereinafter Island) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action sounding in negligence against Island.

Even if there was a duty owed to the plaintiff by Island based on the cashing of the subject checks, UCC 3-405 (1) (c), the “fictitious payee rule,” bars any claim alleging negligence against Island since the indorsements on the subject checks were effective and there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of Island in cashing them (see UCC 3-405 [1] [b]; Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v Chemical Bank, 94 NY2d 418 [2000]; Getty Petroleum Corp. v American Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 90 NY2d 322 [1997]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 372, 757 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illuminations-by-arnold-inc-v-banco-popular-de-puerto-rico-nyappdiv-2003.