Kosic v. Marine Midland Bank

Decision Date17 November 1981
Citation446 N.Y.S.2d 264,55 N.Y.2d 621
Parties, 430 N.E.2d 1317 Vladimir KOSIC, Respondent, v. MARINE MIDLAND BANK, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Stewart F. Hancock, Jr. at the Appellate Division (76 A.D.2d 89, 430 N.Y.S.2d 175).

All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Five Towns College v. Citibank, N.A.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 20, 1985
    ...Bank & Trust Co. v. Kidwell Constr. Co., supra; cf. Kosic v. Marine Midland Bank, 76 A.D.2d 89, 430 N.Y.S.2d 175, affd. 55 N.Y.2d 621, 446 N.Y.S.2d 264, 430 N.E.2d 1317; Titan Air Conditioning Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 61 A.D.2d 764, 402 N.Y.S.2d 12), but it is argued, inter alia......
  • Knight Pub. Co., Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1997
    ... ... For example, in Kosic v. Marine Midland Bank, 76 A.D.2d 89, 430 N.Y.S.2d 175 (N.Y.App.Div.1980)[125 N.C.App. 13] , ... ...
  • Pamar Enterprises, Inc. v. Huntington Banks of Mich., Docket No. 196202
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • March 20, 1998
    ...Ambassador, supra at 752-754; Kosic v. Marine Midland Bank, 76 A.D.2d 89, 92, 430 N.Y.S.2d 175 (1980), aff'd. 55 N.Y.2d 621, 446 N.Y.S.2d 264, 430 N.E.2d 1317 (1981); see also Trans-American Steel, supra at 1189-1190. This defense is intended to prevent the unjust enrichment of the drawer. ......
  • Ernst & Co. v. Chemical Bank
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 15, 1994
    ...667, 670, 394 N.Y.S.2d 858, 363 N.E.2d 564; cf., Kosic v. Marine Midland Bank, 76 A.D.2d 89, 430 N.Y.S.2d 175, affd. 55 N.Y.2d 621, 446 N.Y.S.2d 264, 430 N.E.2d 1317). Here, the court reasoned, the only defect was the failure of Mathew Young, already "known" to his endorsee as an authorized......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT