Bay Parkway Nat. Bank of Brooklyn v. Shalom
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | O'BRIEN |
| Citation | 270 N.Y. 172,200 N.E. 685 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1936 |
| Parties | BAY PARKWAY NAT. BANK OF BROOKLYN v. SHALOM. |
270 N.Y. 172
200 N.E. 685
BAY PARKWAY NAT. BANK OF BROOKLYN
v.
SHALOM.
Court of Appeals of New York.
March 3, 1936.
Action by the Bay Parkway National Bank of Brooklyn against Ishaia Shalom. From a judgment of the Appellate Division, Second Department (244 App.Div. 723, 278 N.Y.S. 350), affirming a judgment at Trial Term entered on the verdict of a jury, defendant appeals.
Judgment of Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term reversed and a new trial granted.
[270 N.Y. 173]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.
[200 N.E. 686]
Walter Jeffrey Carlin, of New York City, for appellant.
George A. Ferris and Bartholomew A. Moynahan, both of New York City, for respondent.
[270 N.Y. 174]O'BRIEN, Judge.
The action is on a promissory note dated June 24, 1931, for $5,750, of which defendant is the maker. The defenses are lack of consideration, accommodation for the benefit of plaintiff, and an agreement that the note was not to be paid by defendant. This note is a renewal of one for $9,000, dated July 22, 1930.
Prior to the making of the original note dated July 22, 1930, Munsalli & Farbman, a partnership engaged in the sale of lingerie and also the French Lingerie Shop, Inc., a corporation which had taken over the stock of Munsalli & Farbman, were indebted to plaintiff bank. Defendant was a creditor of Munsalli & Farbman and became treasurer of French Lingerie Shop, Inc. He denies that he made any investment in that corporation prior to December, 1930, but admits that the signature, ‘I. Shalom,’ as treasurer, on a document certified by Louis Munsalli as president and by Samuel Farbman as secretary concerning the adoption of resolutions by the board of directors of French Lingerie Shop, Inc., on July 9, 1930, is his signature.
[270 N.Y. 175]Defendant gave his version in respect to the circumstances under which he signed the original note for $9,000, dated July 22, 1930, as well as the later notes, including the one in suit. In view of the verdict we must conclude that the jury credited this testimony. Nasser, a director of plaintiff bank, said to defendant: ‘Please, Mr. Shalom, I want you to sign notes for $9,000 for Munsalli & Farbman. * * * If you don't sign the note for Munsalli & Farbman, any day there will be a run on the bank,’ and that all defendant's friends would lose their deposits. Nasser added: ‘The bank examiner want to see the book. He can't show up the bank any loss because he was lost some money before, about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oench, Duhme Co v. Federal Deposit Ins Corporation, No. 206
...903; Niblack v. Farley, 286 Ill. 536, 122 N.E. 160; Cedar State Bank v. Olson, 116 Kan. 320, 226 P. 995; Bay Parkway Nat. Bank v. Shalom, 270 N.Y. 172, 200 N.E. 685; German-American Finance Corp. v. Merchants & Mfrs. State Bank, 177 Minn. 529, 225 N.W. 891, 64 A.L.R. 582. In others he had '......
-
Deitrick v. Greaney, No. 246
...139 N.E. 645; Longley v. Coons, 244 App.Div. 391, 280 N.Y.S. 17, affirmed 268 N.Y. 712, 198 N.E. 571; Bay Parkway Nat. Bank v. Shalom, 270 N.Y. 172, 200 N.E. 685; see First National Bank of Williamsburg v. Smith, 132 Pa.Super. 73, 200 A. 215. In a strict and technical sense an estoppel aris......
-
National Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, No. L--11133
...precautions by such assignor would have saved the damage and loss complained of in this action. Bay Parkway Nat. Bank v. Shalom, 270 N.Y. 172, 200 N.E. Most important of all in deciding the merits of the alleged causes of action is the conclusion that must be reached by an examination Page ......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Oehlert, No. 2-57794
...903; Niblack v. Farley, 286 Ill. 536, 122 N.E. 160; Cedar State Bank v. Olson, 116 Kan. 320, 226 P. 995; Bay Parkway Nat. Bank v. Shalom, 270 N.Y. 172, 200 N.E. 685; German-American Finance Corp. v. Merchants & M. State Bank, 177 Minn. 529, 225 N.W. 891, 64 A.L.R. 582. In others he had "no ......
-
Deitrick v. Greaney, No. 246
...139 N.E. 645; Longley v. Coons, 244 App.Div. 391, 280 N.Y.S. 17, affirmed 268 N.Y. 712, 198 N.E. 571; Bay Parkway Nat. Bank v. Shalom, 270 N.Y. 172, 200 N.E. 685; see First National Bank of Williamsburg v. Smith, 132 Pa.Super. 73, 200 A. 215. In a strict and technical sense an estoppel aris......
-
Oench, Duhme Co v. Federal Deposit Ins Corporation, No. 206
...903; Niblack v. Farley, 286 Ill. 536, 122 N.E. 160; Cedar State Bank v. Olson, 116 Kan. 320, 226 P. 995; Bay Parkway Nat. Bank v. Shalom, 270 N.Y. 172, 200 N.E. 685; German-American Finance Corp. v. Merchants & Mfrs. State Bank, 177 Minn. 529, 225 N.W. 891, 64 A.L.R. 582. In others he h......
-
National Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, No. L--11133
...precautions by such assignor would have saved the damage and loss complained of in this action. Bay Parkway Nat. Bank v. Shalom, 270 N.Y. 172, 200 N.E. Most important of all in deciding the merits of the alleged causes of action is the conclusion that must be reached by an examination Page ......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Oehlert, No. 2-57794
...903; Niblack v. Farley, 286 Ill. 536, 122 N.E. 160; Cedar State Bank v. Olson, 116 Kan. 320, 226 P. 995; Bay Parkway Nat. Bank v. Shalom, 270 N.Y. 172, 200 N.E. 685; German-American Finance Corp. v. Merchants & M. State Bank, 177 Minn. 529, 225 N.W. 891, 64 A.L.R. 582. In others he had ......