You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined, inter alia, that there were questions of fact whether a note and  guaranties were ratified, despite forged signatures:

It is well established that a forged instrument may be ratified where “the principal retains the benefit of an unauthorized transaction with knowledge of the material facts” … . The evidence submitted in support of the motion contained sworn statements of Wheeler and his business partner establishing that the proceeds of the loan were used to provide the corporation with capital and that its president, Wheeler, knew that his signature had been forged on the documents authorizing the loan. Wheeler, however, never attempted to return the proceeds of the loan, and the loan “cannot now be repudiated” … . Thus, Wheeler’s own submissions raised issues of fact whether he ratified the forged note … . …

Even assuming, arguendo, that Wheeler established as a matter of law that the guaranties were forged, we conclude that plaintiff raised issues of fact whether he had knowledge of the guaranties and thus whether he ratified them … . Adirondack Bank v Midstate Foam & Equip., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01713, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH DEPT))/FORGERY (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH DEPT))/NOTES (FORGERY, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH DEPT))/GUARANTIES (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH DEPT))/RATIFICATION (NOTES, GUARANTIES, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE WAS ENTITLED TO COMMISSIONS EARNED ON HIS ACCOUNTS BEFORE, BUT NOT AFTER, PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED; ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS ORAL, IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS UNTIL AFTER PLANTIFF WAS TERMINATED. (FOURTH DEPT).
THE BULLET CASINGS IN EVIDENCE COULD HAVE COME FROM A PISTOL OR A RIFLE; DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PISTOL AND THE JURY WAS SO INSTRUCTED; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE JURY TO CONCLUDE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A PISTOL, AS OPPOSED TO A RIFLE, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF ALL THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA, INCLUDING THE FINE; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE WHO DISMISSED THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT PLACE ON THE RECORD THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS TIMELY FILED (FOURTH DEPT).
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL WITH ELEVEN JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL ON ALL COUNTS WITHOUT INQUIRING WHETHER A VERDICT HAD BEEN REACHED ON ANY OF THE COUNTS; RETRIAL OF THIS MURDER CASE PROHIBITED ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
TRIAL TESTIMONY RENDERED SEVERAL COUNTS IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE DUPLICITOUS (FOURTH DEPT).
VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO REOPEN THE PROOF AFTER A... FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT...