Masselli v. Dime Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Masselli v. Dime Savings Bank

202 A.D.2d 303, 610 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2563

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 303 (Masselli v. Dime Savings Bank) 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

Masselli v. Dime Savings Bank, 202 A.D.2d 303, 610 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered on or about January 13, 1993 which, inter alia, declared that the sale of the plaintiffs cooperative shares violated the note and security agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that the plaintiffs letter of January 31, 1991 constituted proper notice of a change of address to which all future notices had to be sent by the defendant. In view of plaintiffs unrebutted testimony of actual mailing and defendant’s offer of only general office procedures, the presumption of receipt arising from mailing was properly applied (see, Engel v Lichterman, 62 NY2d 943). Accordingly, the notices sent by defendant following this letter were not properly sent to the correct address and were therefore nullities. The parties’ agreement required written notice and therefore defendant’s claim of oral notice is not reasonable (UCC 9-504 [3]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered on or about January 13, 1993 which, inter alia, declared that the sale of the plaintiffs cooperative shares violated the note and security agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that the plaintiffs letter of January 31, 1991 constituted proper notice of a change of address to which all future notices had to be sent by the defendant. In view of plaintiffs unrebutted testimony of actual mailing and defendant’s offer of only general office procedures, the presumption of receipt arising from mailing was properly applied (see, Engel v Lichterman, 62 NY2d 943). Accordingly, the notices sent by defendant following this letter were not properly sent to the correct address and were therefore nullities. The parties’ agreement required written notice and therefore defendant’s claim of oral notice is not reasonable (UCC 9-504 [3]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 303, 610 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masselli-v-dime-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack