Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Citibank, N. A. v. Pitassi
Citations: 78 A.D.2d 616; 432 N.Y.S.2d 389; 31 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 631; 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13068
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 21, 1980; New York; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Court of New York County issued an order on March 6, 1980, reversing a prior denial of plaintiff Citibank's motion for summary judgment against corporate defendant Bussewitz and Company and individual defendant Pitassi. The case arose from a promissory note dated June 2, 1978, for a loan made to Bussewitz and Company, signed by both Bussewitz and Pitassi as co-makers. After the defendants defaulted, Citibank declared the unpaid balance due and initiated legal action for recovery. Pitassi's defense centered on the claim that the note was incomplete due to a blank space for the first installment payment date, rendering it unenforceable. He also asserted he was an accommodation maker, seeking to transfer liability to his co-defendants. The court found that the Special Term incorrectly identified a factual issue regarding Pitassi's signing capacity, asserting that his liability to the bank is unaffected by that capacity. Under Section 3-415 of the Uniform Commercial Code, an accommodation party remains liable regardless of the circumstances of their signing, particularly when the note is taken for value. Furthermore, the court ruled that Pitassi's argument about the absence of a payment start date did not invalidate the note; rather, his previous payments indicated a waiver of any such claim. The note is deemed payable on demand if no date is specified, according to UCC Section 3-108. Consequently, the court concluded there were no factual disputes and granted Citibank's motion for summary judgment. The decision was concurred by Justices Sullivan, Ross, Markewich, Yesawich, and Carro.