Strategic Trading LLC v. Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc.

2018 NY Slip Op 1132
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 2018
Docket5723 150076/16
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 1132 (Strategic Trading LLC v. Deutsche Bank Sec., 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
Strategic Trading LLC v. Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 1132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Strategic Trading LLC v Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 01132)
Strategic Trading LLC v Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 01132
Decided on February 15, 2018
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 15, 2018
Friedman, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Singh, JJ.

5723 150076/16

[*1]Strategic Trading LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., etc., Defendant-Respondent.


TJ Morrow, New York, for appellants.

Moses & Singer, LLP, New York (Jason Canales of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered March 28, 2017, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, and granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly determined that this action to obtain payment on two 20-year old checks is untimely under Maryland Code Commercial Law § 3-118(c). We reject plaintiffs' argument that the UCC does not apply to this matter, which seeks enforcement of negotiable instruments (see Maryland Code Commercial Law § 3-102[a]). Plaintiffs' arguments center on the inapplicability of UCC article 2, Sales, but neither defendant nor Supreme Court relied on UCC article 2.

The court properly relied on the margin account agreement, identified and proffered by an officer in defendant's institutional and private client group, which was admissible for purposes of the summary judgment motion before the court (see DeLeon v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 306 AD2d 146 [1st Dept 2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 15, 2018

CLERK



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

Related

DeLeon v. Port Authority
306 A.D.2d 146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 1132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strategic-trading-llc-v-deutsche-bank-sec-inc-nyappdiv-2018.