Marine Midland Bank v. St. Louis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marine Midland Bank v. St. Louis

75 A.D.2d 972, 428 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11618

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

DecidedMay 29, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 972 (Marine Midland Bank v. St. Louis) 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

Marine Midland Bank v. St. Louis, 75 A.D.2d 972, 428 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal (1) from an order of the County Court of Franklin County, entered August 13, 1979, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and (2) from the judgment entered thereon. The defendants sought to avoid liability on this unpaid obligation in the form of a retail installment contract by alleging that the plaintiff failed to carry out the repossession and sale of the collateral security (a motor vehicle) in a "commercially reasonable” manner as required by subdivision (3) of section 9-504 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The County Court granted summary judgment upon a finding that the mere fact of a resale of the security at a price much less than the original price does not by itself create a triable issue of fact. For the reasons set forth in the decision of the County Court, summary judgment was properly granted. (See Bankers Trust Co. v Dohler & Co., 47 NY2d 128, 134, 136.) Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Staley, Jr., Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal (1) from an order of the County Court of Franklin County, entered August 13, 1979, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and (2) from the judgment entered thereon. The defendants sought to avoid liability on this unpaid obligation in the form of a retail installment contract by alleging that the plaintiff failed to carry out the repossession and sale of the collateral security (a motor vehicle) in a "commercially reasonable” manner as required by subdivision (3) of section 9-504 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The County Court granted summary judgment upon a finding that the mere fact of a resale of the security at a price much less than the original price does not by itself create a triable issue of fact. For the reasons set forth in the decision of the County Court, summary judgment was properly granted. (See Bankers Trust Co. v Dohler & Co., 47 NY2d 128, 134, 136.) Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Staley, Jr., Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 972, 428 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-midland-bank-v-st-louis-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack