Frankel v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.
| Citation | 483 N.Y.S.2d 67,106 A.D.2d 542 |
| Parties | Martin E. FRANKEL, D.M.D., et al., Appellants, v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY, Respondent; Lillyan Frankel, additional Defendant on counterclaim. |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1984 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Melvin M. Belli, San Francisco, Cal. (David Lee, Lloyd Staley, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for appellants.
Robert M. Rosenblith, New York City, for respondent.
Joel R. Brandes, P.C., Garden City (John P. DiMascio, Long Beach, of counsel), for additional defendant on counterclaim.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and GIBBONS, O'CONNOR and BROWN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for the wrongful dishonor of checks, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 6, 1983, as dismissed their complaint. (We deem the notice of appeal from an order dated February 4, 1983 to be a notice of appeal from the judgment.)
Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Although the general rule is that an appeal taken from an order which is followed by an entry of final judgment in the same action must fall and review may only be had upon appeal from the final judgment, we have, in the interest of justice, deemed the notice of appeal from the order to be a notice of appeal from the subsequent judgment in which the order was subsumed (see Men's World Outlet v. Estate of Steinberg, 101 A.D.2d 854, 476 N.Y.S.2d 171; National Bank v. Kory, 63 A.D.2d 579, 404 N.Y.S.2d 626; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Roberts & Roberts, 63 A.D.2d 566, 404 N.Y.S.2d 608; CPLR 5520, subd. ).
Turning to the substantive issue, we note that on July 10, 1981, the individual plaintiff's wife, Mrs. Frankel, obtained an order of sequestration, which among other things, appointed her receiver of her husband's real and personal property located in the State of New York, including his interest in, and the income due him from the corporate plaintiff. The sequestration order was served on defendant Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company (Manufacturers) on July 13, 1981, which placed a hold on the corporate plaintiff's bank account and so informed Dr. Frankel. In or about December, 1981, plaintiffs commenced the present action seeking damages, inter alia, for wrongful dishonor of checks, and in its answer to the complaint, Manufacturers alleged, as a defense, that it had acted in good faith and in compliance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GTF Marketing, Inc. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, Inc.
...of performance in all the cases stems from the same survey, found to be fraudulently portrayed (cf. Frankel v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 106 A.D.2d 542, 483 N.Y.S.2d 67). Justice Robbins' findings should be given preclusive effect here because the unconscionability aspect of the tran......
-
Curtis v. Curtis
...the judgment (CPLR 5520[c]; Kozlowski v. City of Amsterdam, 111 A.D.2d 476, 477, 488 N.Y.S.2d 862; see, Frankel v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 106 A.D.2d 542, 483 N.Y.S.2d 67). Here, there has been no showing of prejudice or that the judgment was different from the order in any materia......
-
U.S. Capital Ins. Co. v. Buffalo and Erie County Regional Development Corp.
...to be a notice of appeal from the subsequent judgment in which the order was subsumed (see, CPLR 5520[c]; Frankel v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 106 A.D.2d 542, 483 N.Y.S.2d 67; Men's World Outlet v. Estate of Steinberg, 101 A.D.2d 854, 476 N.Y.S.2d 171). Turning to the substantive iss......
-
Sinicropi v. Town of Indian Lake
...was being sent to the Hamilton County Clerk. Therefore, we will consider the appeal on the merits (cf., Frankel v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 106 A.D.2d 542, 483 N.Y.S.2d 67). Having so concluded, we believe that defendant has made the requisite showing that its possession was "hostil......