TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. 11 Stone Street Corp.

Drexel Burnham Lambert, Incorporated v. 11 Stone Street Corp., , , Third-Party , Third-Party

Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. 11 Stone St. Corp., 156 A.D.2d 121 (1989)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 5, 1989
Citations
156 A.D.2d 121548 N.Y.S.2d 8811989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15193

Opinion of the Court

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

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Jawn A. Sandifer, Stanley Parness and Edith Miller, JJ.), entered May 24, 1988, which modified the judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Samuel Weinberg, J.), entered May 23, 1986, which held 11 Stone Street Corp. liable to plaintiff, only to the extent of granting defendant-appellant judgment on the third-party complaint against third-party defendants Joseph Leone and John Nicotra, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action, plaintiff sought to recover $26,911.40 paid by plaintiff to defendant-appellant on 79 payroll checks with forged endorsements. The forged checks were payable to 79 terminated employees of plaintiff, endorsed by defendant Ca-plan and cashed by appellant 11 Stone Street.

Both the Civil Court and Appellant Term agreed that appellant breached its warranty of good title (UCC 3-417 [1] [a]) when it obtained payment from plaintiff. While appellant attempts to invoke the "fictitious payee” doctrine (UCC 3-405 [1] [c]), the doctrine is inapplicable since appellant did not take the checks in good faith. (Underpinning & Found. Constructors v Chase Manhattan Bank, 46 NY2d 459 [1979]; and see, Savings Banks Trust Co. v Federal Reserve Bank, 738 F2d 573 [2d Cir 1984].) The record demonstrates that appellant was careless and negligent in its conduct and thus is liable to plaintiff for the value of the checks. We have considered appellant’s other claims and do not find them to be persuasive. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1992: 119922026peak 1992 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Wasatch Bank788 F. Supp. 1184 (D. Utah 1992)

Most recent

  1. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Wasatch Bank788 F. Supp. 1184 (D. Utah 1992)

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
Underpinning & Found. Constructors, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 386 N.E.2d 1319 (N.Y. 1979) 107

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