Kay v. Tankel

New York Supreme Court

Kay v. Tankel

23 Misc. 2d 996, 204 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2589

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 11, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 Misc. 2d 996 (Kay v. Tankel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kay v. Tankel, 23 Misc. 2d 996, 204 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2589 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

First, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. It alleges that on May 22, 1955, the defendant for value issued two checks in the sum of $1,000 and $3,410. A check is a bill of exchange, drawn on a bank and payable on demand. (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 321.) There is no allegation that these alleged checks were presented to and dishonored by a bank. Furthermore, on this motion the plaintiff has submitted as exhibits two promissory notes dated May 5, 1955, for the amounts previously stated, instead of any checks.

Second, if the complaint did state a cause of action, summary judgment would be denied anyway. There are issues of fact concerning collateral securities deposited with the plaintiff by the defendant for the payment of the negotiable instruments herein. Among the factual issues to be decided are: Were the valuable Palestine stamps delivered to the plaintiff for security? If so, where are they? Were they used by the plaintiff in payment of the negotiable instruments herein? • Thus, issues of fact prevent the granting of a motion for summary judgment (Falk v. Goodman, 7 N Y 2d 87; Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N Y 2d 395, 404).

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

Mario Pittoni, J.

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

First, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. It alleges that on May 22, 1955, the defendant for value issued two checks in the sum of $1,000 and $3,410. A check is a bill of exchange, drawn on a bank and payable on demand. (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 321.) There is no allegation that these alleged checks were presented to and dishonored by a bank. Furthermore, on this motion the plaintiff has submitted as exhibits two promissory notes dated May 5, 1955, for the amounts previously stated, instead of any checks.

Second, if the complaint did state a cause of action, summary judgment would be denied anyway. There are issues of fact concerning collateral securities deposited with the plaintiff by the defendant for the payment of the negotiable instruments herein. Among the factual issues to be decided are: Were the valuable Palestine stamps delivered to the plaintiff for security? If so, where are they? Were they used by the plaintiff in payment of the negotiable instruments herein? • Thus, issues of fact prevent the granting of a motion for summary judgment (Falk v. Goodman, 7 N Y 2d 87; Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N Y 2d 395, 404).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Misc. 2d 996, 204 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kay-v-tankel-nysupct-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack