You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Regent Corp. U.S.A. v. Azmat Bangladesh Ltd.

Citations: 259 A.D.2d 255; 686 N.Y.S.2d 23; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2309

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 1, 1999; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a dispute involving International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Limited (IFICB), Citibank, N.A., and The Bank of New York, the Supreme Court of New York County denied IFICB's motion for summary judgment regarding its cross-claims against the banks. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the banks, effectively dismissing IFICB's cross-claims. However, upon appeal, a modification of the ruling was ordered. The appellate court found an unresolved factual dispute concerning IFICB's status as a holder in due course of certain negotiable instruments, which prevented the granting of summary judgment to the banks. Citing the precedent case Regent Corp. v Azmat Bangladesh, the appellate court reinstated IFICB's cross-claims and upheld the decision in other respects without costs. The appellate court's decision underscores the necessity of resolving factual disputes, such as the holder in due course status, before summary judgment can be appropriately granted. The decision was concurred by Justices Williams, Lerner, Rubin, and Saxe.

Legal Issues Addressed

Holder in Due Course Status

Application: The appellate court identified a factual dispute regarding IFICB's status as a holder in due course, which needed resolution before granting summary judgment.

Reasoning: The court established that the drafts involved are negotiable instruments and identified a factual dispute regarding IFICB's status as a holder in due course, referencing the case Regent Corp. v Azmat Bangladesh.

Negotiable Instruments

Application: The court determined that the financial drafts in question are considered negotiable instruments, which influenced the handling of the case.

Reasoning: The court established that the drafts involved are negotiable instruments and identified a factual dispute regarding IFICB's status as a holder in due course.

Summary Judgment Standard

Application: The court initially granted summary judgment to the banks, dismissing IFICB's cross-claims, but this was later modified on appeal due to unresolved factual disputes.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of New York County, presided over by Justice Herman Cahn, issued an order on June 4, 1998, denying the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Limited (IFICB) concerning its cross-claims against defendants Citibank, N.A. and The Bank of New York.