From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pascal v. Tardera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1986
123 A.D.2d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

October 20, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant is the maker of a promissory note, dated December 23, 1982, in the amount of $10,000, payable to the plaintiff on or before January 7, 1983. Because the note was not payable "to order or to bearer" (see, UCC 3-104 [d]), the plaintiff payee did not hold it in due course (UCC 3-805) and was, therefore, subject to the defense of want or failure of consideration (UCC 3-306 [c]). However, the evidence adduced at trial supports the trial court's determination that there was ample consideration for the defendant's promise to pay, inasmuch as the note was given to secure a loan of $10,000 by the plaintiff to the defendant.

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pascal v. Tardera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1986
123 A.D.2d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Pascal v. Tardera

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH PASCAL, Respondent, v. JOHN TARDERA, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 20, 1986

Citations

123 A.D.2d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Sunrizon Homes, Inc. v. American Guaranty Investment Corp.

Continental is not a holder in due course of a negotiable instrument, and it is subject to the defense of…

Goodman, Rakower Agiato v. Lieberman

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. There is an issue of fact as to whether the defendant has…