Straniere, Fagin, McKenna, Runes & Nachison v. Marine Midland Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Straniere, Fagin, McKenna, Runes & Nachison v. Marine Midland Bank

74 A.D.2d 525, 425 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10127

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 525 (Straniere, Fagin, McKenna, Runes & Nachison v. Marine Midland Bank) 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

Straniere, Fagin, McKenna, Runes & Nachison v. Marine Midland Bank, 74 A.D.2d 525, 425 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 25, 1979, denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant, and motion granted. Special Term found that "the undisputed facts show that the check was not paid or returned by midnight of the next banking day”, in accordance with its obligation under sections 4-301 and 4-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Defenses and delays which will excuse prompt performance by a payor bank are strictly governed by statute. No valid defense pursuant to section 4-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code nor excusable delay pursuant to section 4-108 of the Uniform Commercial Code was established by defendant-respondent. Settle order. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Markewich and Carro, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 25, 1979, denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant, and motion granted. Special Term found that "the undisputed facts show that the check was not paid or returned by midnight of the next banking day”, in accordance with its obligation under sections 4-301 and 4-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Defenses and delays which will excuse prompt performance by a payor bank are strictly governed by statute. No valid defense pursuant to section 4-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code nor excusable delay pursuant to section 4-108 of the Uniform Commercial Code was established by defendant-respondent. Settle order. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Markewich and Carro, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 525, 425 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/straniere-fagin-mckenna-runes-nachison-v-marine-midland-bank-nyappdiv-1980.