River Valley Farms Co. v. Brunners Southtown Poultry, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

River Valley Farms Co. v. Brunners Southtown Poultry, Inc.

191 A.D.2d 1040, 595 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3006

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 12, 1993·Published

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this action between the "immediate parties” to certain negotiable instruments drawn on the account of the corporate defendant but signed by defendant Donald Brunner, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion and the individual defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Based upon their 10-year course of dealing, we find that an issue of fact is presented whether plaintiff knew or understood that the individual defendant intended to sign the instruments in a representative capacity only (see, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 228, 229; see also, UCC 3-403 [2] [b]; cf., Tropical Ornamentals v Visconti, 115 AD2d 537, 538-539). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this action between the "immediate parties” to certain negotiable instruments drawn on the account of the corporate defendant but signed by defendant Donald Brunner, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion and the individual defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Based upon their 10-year course of dealing, we find that an issue of fact is presented whether plaintiff knew or understood that the individual defendant intended to sign the instruments in a representative capacity only (see, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 228, 229; see also, UCC 3-403 [2] [b]; cf., Tropical Ornamentals v Visconti, 115 AD2d 537, 538-539). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

River Valley Farms Co. v. Brunners Southtown Poultry, Inc., 191 A.D.2d 1040, 595 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

191 A.D.2d 1040 (River Valley Farms Co. v. Brunners Southtown Poultry, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related