ADCO Elec. Corp. v Fahey

ADCO Elec. Corp. v Fahey 2007 NY Slip Op 04571 [40 AD3d 543] May 31, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 11, 2007

ADCO Electrical Corporation, Doing Business as Scholes Electric & Communications, Appellant,
v
Bruce Fahey et al., Defendants, and Platzer, Swergold, Karlin, Levine, Goldberg & Jaslow, LLP, Respondent.

—[*1] Goldman & Greenbaum, P.C., New York (Sheldon M. Greenbaum of counsel), and Witman Stadtmauer, P.A., Florham Park, N.J. (Stephen M. Charme of counsel), for appellant.

Platzer, Swergold, Karlin, Levine, Goldberg & Jaslow, LLP, New York (Steven D. Karlin of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered July 27, 2006, dismissing the complaint as against defendant Platzer Swergold, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate, in this action for conversion and money had and received, that defendant law firm was not a holder in due course (UCC 3-302 [1]) of the retainer check given to it by nonparty McCann, Inc. as payment for legal services to be rendered (see First Intl. Bank of Israel v Blankstein & Son, 59 NY2d 436 [1983]; Chemical Bank of Rochester v Haskell, 51 NY2d 85 [1980]). This check was drawn on a corporate account, and there was no indication that the law firm had actual knowledge of any defense against it (UCC 3-304 [7]; see Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v American Express Co., 74 NY2d 153, 162 [1989]). [*2]

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.