TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sumner v. Extebank

Eugene Sumner v. Extebank, as Successor in Interest to Century National Bank and Trust Company

Sumner v. Extebank, 449 N.E.2d 704 (N.Y. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 31, 1983
Citations
449 N.E.2d 70458 N.Y.2d 1087462 N.Y.S.2d 8101983 N.Y. LEXIS 300635 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1362

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to appellants, by reversing so much of the order as granted judgment to defendant and dismissed the complaint, and by reinstating the order of Trial Term, which ordered a new trial, and as so modified, affirmed.

Plaintiffs contend that defendant’s private sale of stock held as collateral was improper under section 9-504 of the Uniform Commercial Code because the sale price was unreasonably low. At trial, plaintiffs presented evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the corporation’s sole asset, an oil tanker, was worth at least $1,650,000 at the time of the sale. The trial court set aside 0 the verdict for plaintiffs as against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial.

The Appellate Division went one step further and entered judgment for defendant. In doing so, that court made new factual findings and thereby substituted itself for the jury. The Appellate Division had the power only to order a new trial in such circumstances unless there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498 ). There having been sufficient evidence, it was error to enter judgment for defendant.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order modified, with costs to appellants, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1984: 11986: 11988: 11989: 11993: 11994: 12012: 12021: 219842026peak 2021 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 382 N.E.2d 1145 (N.Y. 1978) 1,562

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list