Randisi v. Household Finance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Randisi v. Household Finance Corp.

269 A.D. 975, 58 N.Y.S.2d 406

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1945·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

(dissenting). In our opinion, section 358 of the Banking Law does not purport to declare a loan void merely because a statement furnished pursuant to section 353, by inadvertent error incorrectly states the date of maturity.

[976]*976The error herein was clearly inadvertent, and the order should be reversed, the complaint dismissed and defendant Household Finance Corporation awarded judgment m the consolidated action.

Martin, P. J., Townleyand Dore, JJ., concur in decision; Cohn and Callahan, JJ., dissent in opinion.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. (Reich v. Railroad Employees’ Personal Loan Co., 291 N. Y. 714.)

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

Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

(dissenting). In our opinion, section 358 of the Banking Law does not purport to declare a loan void merely because a statement furnished pursuant to section 353, by inadvertent error incorrectly states the date of maturity.

[976]*976The error herein was clearly inadvertent, and the order should be reversed, the complaint dismissed and defendant Household Finance Corporation awarded judgment m the consolidated action.

Martin, P. J., Townleyand Dore, JJ., concur in decision; Cohn and Callahan, JJ., dissent in opinion.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. (Reich v. Railroad Employees’ Personal Loan Co., 291 N. Y. 714.)

Randisi v. Household Finance Corp., 269 A.D. 975, 58 N.Y.S.2d 406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

269 A.D. 975 (Randisi v. Household Finance Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related