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.
35 CITY ISLAND, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BANCO POPULAR, Defendant-Appellant, North Fork Bank, Defendant-Respondent, Vera Westin Restaurant, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered July 9, 2007, which, in an action for conversion of a check, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendant-appellant depository bank's liability, and granted defendant-respondent payor bank's cross motion for summary judgment on its cross claim against appellant for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The subject check was made payable to “VeraWestin Restaurant Corp. dba Neptune Inn & 35 City Island Avenue LLC.” The check was endorsed and deposited with appellant by a principal of VeraWestin, who absconded. The motion court correctly held that the check was a two-party check that required the endorsement of plaintiff as well as VeraWestin (UCC 3-116[b] ). We reject appellant's argument that the ampersand equally joined Neptune Inn and 35 City Island LLC as one entity that reflected an assumed name for VeraWestin, or at least created an ambiguity in that regard such that its handling of the check satisfied reasonable commercial standards. “An assumed name shall contain no indicator of organizational form (e.g., ․ limited liability company)” (19 NYCRR 1156.4[c][1] ), and, if the check was ambiguous, appellant was required to treat it as a two-party check (Kryten Iron Works v. Ultra-Tech Fabricators, 228 A.D.2d 416, 417, 643 N.Y.S.2d 648 [1996] ). To accept appellant's argument that its employees were not required to know that an assumed name may not contain any indicator of organizational form would encourage ignorance, rather than knowledge, of the law, which would be particularly inappropriate given the obligation of appellant to inspect the check for proper endorsement (cf. Costello v. Oneida Natl. Bank & Trust Co. of Cent. N.Y., 109 A.D.2d 1085, 487 N.Y.S.2d 238 [1985]; affd. 66 N.Y.2d 619, 495 N.Y.S.2d 32, 485 N.E.2d 239 [1985] ). The payor bank was properly awarded indemnification against appellant for breach of transfer warranties (UCC 4-207; see Leonard Smith, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 129 A.D.2d 397, 399, 518 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1987] ).
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: May 13, 2008
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)