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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 1994·Published

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.

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

202 A.D.2d 303 (Masselli v. Dime Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related