Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Sumande Shipping Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Sumande Shipping Corp.

48 A.D.2d 775, 369 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9950

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 1975·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 4, 1974, denying plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and motion granted with $60 costs and disbursements to appellant. It stands factually unrefuted in the record that plaintiff bank made loans to defendant which are evidenced by the promissory notes sued upon and that defendant received the money, applied it to the purchase of a steamship (and to cover operational expenses) and now has refused to repay the bank therefor. Defendant’s new shareholders cannot claim lack of knowledge, when the facts are ascertainable and obvious, and thereby defeat plaintiff’s amply documented right to recover. Certainly, it is no defense that the signatories to the banking resolution did not actually hold the respective offices indicated therein. Since it is clearly established that the defendant received the sums sued for and used them for corporate purposes, it must repay plaintiff. Settle order on notice. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 4, 1974, denying plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and motion granted with $60 costs and disbursements to appellant. It stands factually unrefuted in the record that plaintiff bank made loans to defendant which are evidenced by the promissory notes sued upon and that defendant received the money, applied it to the purchase of a steamship (and to cover operational expenses) and now has refused to repay the bank therefor. Defendant’s new shareholders cannot claim lack of knowledge, when the facts are ascertainable and obvious, and thereby defeat plaintiff’s amply documented right to recover. Certainly, it is no defense that the signatories to the banking resolution did not actually hold the respective offices indicated therein. Since it is clearly established that the defendant received the sums sued for and used them for corporate purposes, it must repay plaintiff. Settle order on notice. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Sumande Shipping Corp., 48 A.D.2d 775, 369 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

48 A.D.2d 775 (Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Sumande Shipping Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related