Metlab Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Metlab Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.

177 A.D.2d 956, 577 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15684

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 177 A.D.2d 956 (Metlab Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.) 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

Metlab Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 177 A.D.2d 956, 577 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden of showing entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). First, as Special Term correctly found, plaintiff seeks summary judgment based on its contract with defendant, but that contract is not in the record. Second, although plaintiff’s theory in its complaint is that defendant paid on the letter of credit for the benefit of a transferee without proper documentation of transfer by the beneficiary, defendant’s telex in the record states that payment was made for the benefit of the named beneficiary. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden of showing entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). First, as Special Term correctly found, plaintiff seeks summary judgment based on its contract with defendant, but that contract is not in the record. Second, although plaintiff’s theory in its complaint is that defendant paid on the letter of credit for the benefit of a transferee without proper documentation of transfer by the beneficiary, defendant’s telex in the record states that payment was made for the benefit of the named beneficiary. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 956, 577 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metlab-corp-v-marine-midland-bank-na-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack