Margolis v. Chemical Bank of New York Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Margolis v. Chemical Bank of New York Trust Co.

49 A.D.2d 846, 373 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11001

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 846 (Margolis v. Chemical Bank of New York Trust Co.) 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

Margolis v. Chemical Bank of New York Trust Co., 49 A.D.2d 846, 373 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 14, 1974 granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the judgment entered thereon on January 14, 1975 unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The court properly found that defendant [847]*847had no duty to the plaintiff and accordingly, that the complaint did not state any cause of action. Indeed, the record demonstrates that plaintiff was not the payee, transferee or holder of the check in issue. And further, as pointed out in the decision of Special Term, plaintiff never even saw the check and the amount which he claims is not "the stated sum on the check”. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 14, 1974 granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the judgment entered thereon on January 14, 1975 unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The court properly found that defendant [847]*847had no duty to the plaintiff and accordingly, that the complaint did not state any cause of action. Indeed, the record demonstrates that plaintiff was not the payee, transferee or holder of the check in issue. And further, as pointed out in the decision of Special Term, plaintiff never even saw the check and the amount which he claims is not "the stated sum on the check”. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 846, 373 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margolis-v-chemical-bank-of-new-york-trust-co-nyappdiv-1975.