Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Custer

465 N.E.2d 358, 62 N.Y.2d 732, 476 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4331

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 8, 1984
• Status: Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the Appellate Division memorandum (97 AD2d 974). We add that when the letter is read together with the note to which it refers, as it must be, the natural import of the words, “This is the amount owing the Doerflinger Estate” is that the relation of debtor and creditor exists between the signer of the letter and the note on the one hand and the estate on the other (Manchester v Braedner, 107 NY 346, 348-349). Absent explanation by defendant that would offer a different meaning, the estate was entitled to summary judgment (id.).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.