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

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 1040 (River Valley Farms Co. v. Brunners Southtown Poultry, Inc.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 1040, 595 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/river-valley-farms-co-v-brunners-southtown-poultry-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack