Weeks Office Products, Inc. v. Chemical Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weeks Office Products, Inc. v. Chemical Bank

180 A.D.2d 419

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 419 (Weeks Office Products, Inc. v. Chemical 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

Weeks Office Products, Inc. v. Chemical Bank, 180 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered September 5, 1991, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that the Uniform Commercial Code was inapplicable to wire transfers prior to the enactment of article 4-A (see, Bradford Trust Co. v Texas Am. Bank, 790 F2d 407; Evra Corp. v Swiss Bank Corp., 673 F2d 951, cert denied 459 US 1017; Delbrueck & Co. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 609 F2d 1047), and that defendant’s reliance on UCC 4-406 (4) as a one-year time bar to the action is therefore unavailing.

Article 4-A, which provides for a similar one-year limitation period (UCC 4-A-505), cannot be applied retroactively as a matter of law (Banque Worms v BankAmerica Intl., 77 NY2d 362). Plaintiff, a non-moving party before the IAS court, urges [420]*420that it should be granted summary judgment upon a search of the record on appeal. Defendant not having had an opportunity to respond to such application before the Motion Court, it would be inappropriate to entertain such request at this juncture, particularly since discovery is still being conducted relative to possible defenses which may be available to defendant bank. (See, prior decision at 169 AD2d 560.) Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered September 5, 1991, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that the Uniform Commercial Code was inapplicable to wire transfers prior to the enactment of article 4-A (see, Bradford Trust Co. v Texas Am. Bank, 790 F2d 407; Evra Corp. v Swiss Bank Corp., 673 F2d 951, cert denied 459 US 1017; Delbrueck & Co. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 609 F2d 1047), and that defendant’s reliance on UCC 4-406 (4) as a one-year time bar to the action is therefore unavailing.

Article 4-A, which provides for a similar one-year limitation period (UCC 4-A-505), cannot be applied retroactively as a matter of law (Banque Worms v BankAmerica Intl., 77 NY2d 362). Plaintiff, a non-moving party before the IAS court, urges [420]*420that it should be granted summary judgment upon a search of the record on appeal. Defendant not having had an opportunity to respond to such application before the Motion Court, it would be inappropriate to entertain such request at this juncture, particularly since discovery is still being conducted relative to possible defenses which may be available to defendant bank. (See, prior decision at 169 AD2d 560.) Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeks-office-products-inc-v-chemical-bank-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack