Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BANCO NACIONAL ULTRAMARINO, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maria Fatima CHAN, et al., Defendants, Moneycenter Trust Co., Ltd., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered December 23, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for conversion against defendants Moneycenter Trust Co., Ltd. and Bellview Airlines, Ltd., unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 19, 1998, which denied plaintiff's motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
We have previously expressed agreement with the IAS court's conclusion that the funds at issue in this case were sufficiently identifiable to support a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff bank for conversion (Banco Nacional Ultramarino, S.A. v. Moneycenter Trust Co., Ltd., 240 A.D.2d 253, 659 N.Y.S.2d 734, affirming for the reasons stated at 169 Misc.2d 182, 641 N.Y.S.2d 1006). However, since plaintiff bank voluntarily relinquished the funds in question by making payment on certain checks-albeit checks drawn against bogus accounts funded by means of the fraud of plaintiff's employee-defendants-respondents may, if they can demonstrate that they were in fact good faith purchasers in the subject currency exchange transactions, interpose an estoppel against plaintiff bank's title pursuant to UCC § 2-403(1)(d). Since there are factual questions respecting whether defendants-respondents acted in good faith, summary judgment was properly denied.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: September 22, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)