Walter Reginald Ltd. v. Port Brokers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walter Reginald Ltd. v. Port Brokers, Inc.

79 A.D.2d 571, 434 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13891

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.2d 571 (Walter Reginald Ltd. v. Port Brokers, 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

Walter Reginald Ltd. v. Port Brokers, Inc., 79 A.D.2d 571, 434 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 25, 1979, and judgment entered thereon October 19, 1979, reversed, on the law, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion for summary judgment denied, with costs and disbursements. Plaintiff-respondent seller of animal skins has sued defendant-appellant customs broker for having violated plaintiff’s instruction indorsed on the shipping documents not to deliver to plaintiff’s customer, Highlander, until the latter had accepted drafts upon it in payment for the merchandise. By the time plaintiff’s bank had presented the original drafts for payment, the customer had gone bankrupt. Defendant-appellant argues that, being the consignee’s broker, and not that of plaintiff consignor, it took it for granted that it was the business of the shipper’s bank to present the original drafts and, nothing to the contrary having appeared, that the bank had done so. Owing no duty whatever, either by contract or in law, to plaintiff shipper, defendant, committed no breach of duty which is apparent in these papers. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should, accordingly, not have been granted. Concur—Ross, J. P., Markewich, Silverman, Bloom 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, and judgment entered thereon October 19, 1979, reversed, on the law, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion for summary judgment denied, with costs and disbursements. Plaintiff-respondent seller of animal skins has sued defendant-appellant customs broker for having violated plaintiff’s instruction indorsed on the shipping documents not to deliver to plaintiff’s customer, Highlander, until the latter had accepted drafts upon it in payment for the merchandise. By the time plaintiff’s bank had presented the original drafts for payment, the customer had gone bankrupt. Defendant-appellant argues that, being the consignee’s broker, and not that of plaintiff consignor, it took it for granted that it was the business of the shipper’s bank to present the original drafts and, nothing to the contrary having appeared, that the bank had done so. Owing no duty whatever, either by contract or in law, to plaintiff shipper, defendant, committed no breach of duty which is apparent in these papers. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should, accordingly, not have been granted. Concur—Ross, J. P., Markewich, Silverman, Bloom and Carro, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 571, 434 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-reginald-ltd-v-port-brokers-inc-nyappdiv-1980.