Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski v. Republic National Bank

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski v. Republic National Bank

160 Misc. 2d 244, 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 159, 613 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1994 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 200

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 23, 1994·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered August 27, 1993 affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree that the defendant depositary-collecting bank failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine question of fact requiring a trial on the issue of the commercial reasonableness of its conduct in accepting the substantial ($150,000) two-party check over a facially irregular, forged indorsement of the plaintiff payee, a noncustomer of the bank. Defendant’s conclusory allegation that it "employed generally accepted commercial practices and standards in connection with the negotiation of the check” lacked any evidentiary detail and was plainly insufficient to meet its burden of proof on this issue (UCC 3-419 [3]; see, Heffernan v Norstar Bank, 125 AD2d 887, 890 [Levine, J.]; Tette v Marine Midland Bank, 78 AD2d 383, 386, appeal dismissed 54 NY2d 681).

Parness, J. P., Miller and McCooe, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered August 27, 1993 affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree that the defendant depositary-collecting bank failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine question of fact requiring a trial on the issue of the commercial reasonableness of its conduct in accepting the substantial ($150,000) two-party check over a facially irregular, forged indorsement of the plaintiff payee, a noncustomer of the bank. Defendant’s conclusory allegation that it "employed generally accepted commercial practices and standards in connection with the negotiation of the check” lacked any evidentiary detail and was plainly insufficient to meet its burden of proof on this issue (UCC 3-419 [3]; see, Heffernan v Norstar Bank, 125 AD2d 887, 890 [Levine, J.]; Tette v Marine Midland Bank, 78 AD2d 383, 386, appeal dismissed 54 NY2d 681).

Parness, J. P., Miller and McCooe, JJ., concur.

Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski v. Republic National Bank, 160 Misc. 2d 244, 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 159, 613 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1994 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

160 Misc. 2d 244 (Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski v. Republic National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related