Talpiot Corp. v. Ferrari Express, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Talpiot Corp. v. Ferrari Express, Inc.

309 A.D.2d 667, 765 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11147

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 667 (Talpiot Corp. v. Ferrari Express, 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

Talpiot Corp. v. Ferrari Express, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 667, 765 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York [668]*668County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered July 3, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff contracted with defendant for defendant to deliver certain packages C.O.D. The packages were delivered by defendant’s delegatee, Federal Express, and, upon delivery, two cashier’s checks, subsequently determined to be fraudulent, were obtained by the delegatee. Inasmuch, however, as the checks appeared to be in the correct amounts, and otherwise bore the necessary facial indicia of validity, no claim lies against defendant carrier for negligence in their acceptance (see McCall-Thomas Eng’g Co., Inc. v Federal Express Corp., 81 F3d 28, 31 [1996]; see e.g. Leather Facts v Foy, 157 Misc 2d 35, 37 [1993]; Transfer Prods. Co. v United Parcel Serv., 105 Misc 2d 1022, 1023-1024 [1980]). We note that defendant did not in its contract with plaintiff undertake any greater duty than is imposed upon a carrier at common law to inquire as to the checks’ validity.

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York [668]*668County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered July 3, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff contracted with defendant for defendant to deliver certain packages C.O.D. The packages were delivered by defendant’s delegatee, Federal Express, and, upon delivery, two cashier’s checks, subsequently determined to be fraudulent, were obtained by the delegatee. Inasmuch, however, as the checks appeared to be in the correct amounts, and otherwise bore the necessary facial indicia of validity, no claim lies against defendant carrier for negligence in their acceptance (see McCall-Thomas Eng’g Co., Inc. v Federal Express Corp., 81 F3d 28, 31 [1996]; see e.g. Leather Facts v Foy, 157 Misc 2d 35, 37 [1993]; Transfer Prods. Co. v United Parcel Serv., 105 Misc 2d 1022, 1023-1024 [1980]). We note that defendant did not in its contract with plaintiff undertake any greater duty than is imposed upon a carrier at common law to inquire as to the checks’ validity.

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 667, 765 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talpiot-corp-v-ferrari-express-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack