Jainchill v. Citibank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jainchill v. Citibank, N. A.

97 A.D.2d 743, 469 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20480

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 97 A.D.2d 743 (Jainchill v. Citibank, N. A.) 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

Jainchill v. Citibank, N. A., 97 A.D.2d 743, 469 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (A. G. Fraiman, J.), entered August 5,1982 denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and summary judgment is granted dismissing the complaint on the merits. In this action for alleged wrongful dishonor of a check drawn on May 20, 1978 by plaintiff’s corporation it appears without evidentiary contradiction that: (a) The check was never presented, (b) At all times from the time the check was drawn until the account was closed, the account either had no credit balance or a nominal credit balance insufficient to cover the check. This was true even allowing for prompt recredit instead of the delayed recredit of a redeposited certified check, (c) The account was not in plaintiff’s name but in the name of a corporation of which plaintiff was allegedly president and sole stockholder. As to the last point it does not matter that as alleged the “business was dissolved”; even if this means the corporation was dissolved, the suit should still have been by the corporation. (Business Corporation Law, § 1006.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Silver-man and Milonas, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (A. G. Fraiman, J.), entered August 5,1982 denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and summary judgment is granted dismissing the complaint on the merits. In this action for alleged wrongful dishonor of a check drawn on May 20, 1978 by plaintiff’s corporation it appears without evidentiary contradiction that: (a) The check was never presented, (b) At all times from the time the check was drawn until the account was closed, the account either had no credit balance or a nominal credit balance insufficient to cover the check. This was true even allowing for prompt recredit instead of the delayed recredit of a redeposited certified check, (c) The account was not in plaintiff’s name but in the name of a corporation of which plaintiff was allegedly president and sole stockholder. As to the last point it does not matter that as alleged the “business was dissolved”; even if this means the corporation was dissolved, the suit should still have been by the corporation. (Business Corporation Law, § 1006.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Silver-man and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 743, 469 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jainchill-v-citibank-n-a-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack