Moore v. Gotham Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Gotham Bank

16 A.D.2d 215, 226 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10245

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

DecidedApril 17, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 215 (Moore v. Gotham 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

Moore v. Gotham Bank, 16 A.D.2d 215, 226 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum by the Court.

The key issue in this case is whether the plaintiff’s employee had authority to stamp the indorsement on the checks which were subsequently deposited in a bank other than that in which the plaintiff had an account. An absence of such authority would render the indorsement a forgery so that the defendant bank could be held liable for the [216]*216diverted proceeds of the check (see McCabe Hanger Mfg. Co. v. Chelsea Exch. Bank, 183 App. Div. 441; Negotiable Instruments Law, § 42). After the plaintiff concluded his case and despiite the fact that the defendant had not yet put in any testimony or rested its case, the court made a finding that there had been authority for the indorsement and thereupon made its decision. The plaintiff, however, testified that no such authority had been given. That testimony put the question of authority in issue and provided the plaintiff with a prima facie case. It was therefore improper for the court to make a finding on the issue of authority at the end of the plaintiff’s case and, based upon such finding, to dismiss the complaint.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

The key issue in this case is whether the plaintiff’s employee had authority to stamp the indorsement on the checks which were subsequently deposited in a bank other than that in which the plaintiff had an account. An absence of such authority would render the indorsement a forgery so that the defendant bank could be held liable for the [216]*216diverted proceeds of the check (see McCabe Hanger Mfg. Co. v. Chelsea Exch. Bank, 183 App. Div. 441; Negotiable Instruments Law, § 42). After the plaintiff concluded his case and despiite the fact that the defendant had not yet put in any testimony or rested its case, the court made a finding that there had been authority for the indorsement and thereupon made its decision. The plaintiff, however, testified that no such authority had been given. That testimony put the question of authority in issue and provided the plaintiff with a prima facie case. It was therefore improper for the court to make a finding on the issue of authority at the end of the plaintiff’s case and, based upon such finding, to dismiss the complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 215, 226 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-gotham-bank-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack