Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski v. Republic National Bank
This text of 160 Misc. 2d 244 (Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski v. Republic National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-melhuish-monaghan-arvidson-abrutyn-lisowski-v-republic-nyappterm-1994.