Staten Island National Bank & Trust Co. v. Buccello

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Staten Island National Bank & Trust Co. v. Buccello

2 Misc. 2d 1020, 146 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2349

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 30, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Misc. 2d 1020 (Staten Island National Bank & Trust Co. v. Buccello) 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.

Bluebook

Staten Island National Bank & Trust Co. v. Buccello, 2 Misc. 2d 1020, 146 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s attorney obviously could not have personal knowledge of a negative, viz., that defendant had never received the T.V. set. His affidavit was therefore hearsay. Since no affidavit by defendant himself was submitted, no defense to the action was established, even prima facie. Furthermore, failure of consideration is not one of the defenses listed in section 94 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which shifts the burden to plaintiff, under section 98 of the Negotiable Instruments Law to show it is a holder in due course (see Schwartz v. Armand Fried, Inc., 189 Misc. 66, and cases there cited; cf. Karpas v. Bandler, 218 App. Div. 418). Defendant failed to submit any facts tending to indicate that plaintiff was not an innocent holder for value.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Hofstadter, Schrelber and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s attorney obviously could not have personal knowledge of a negative, viz., that defendant had never received the T.V. set. His affidavit was therefore hearsay. Since no affidavit by defendant himself was submitted, no defense to the action was established, even prima facie. Furthermore, failure of consideration is not one of the defenses listed in section 94 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which shifts the burden to plaintiff, under section 98 of the Negotiable Instruments Law to show it is a holder in due course (see Schwartz v. Armand Fried, Inc., 189 Misc. 66, and cases there cited; cf. Karpas v. Bandler, 218 App. Div. 418). Defendant failed to submit any facts tending to indicate that plaintiff was not an innocent holder for value.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Hofstadter, Schrelber and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Misc. 2d 1020, 146 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staten-island-national-bank-trust-co-v-buccello-nyappterm-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack