Maurice O'Meara Co. v. Nat'l Park Bank - 239 N.Y. 386, 146 N.E. 636 (1925)

Rule:

Facts must be presented rather than mere general or specific denials in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment. N.Y. R. Civ. Prac. 113.

Facts:

Defendant bank issued to plaintiff's assignor an irrevocable letter of credit in and by which the bank agreed to pay sight drafts to a certain amount on presentation of documents specified in the letter of credit. When drafts for goods shipped were presented with the documents required by and specified in the letter of credit, defendant refused to pay such drafts upon the ground that neither plaintiff nor its assignor had presented "evidence reasonably satisfactory" that the paper referred to in the documents accompanying the drafts was of the tensile strength specified in the letter of credit. Plaintiff then instituted the present action to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff’s assignor by defendant’s refusal to pay the irrevocable letter of credit. The bank's answer denied many of the allegations in the assignee's complaint, and has set up as an affirmative defense, that plaintiff’s assignor was required by the letter of credit to furnish to the defendant evidence reasonably necessary to it that the paper drafts was of the tensile strength specified in the letter of credit, and that an oral agreement for a test of the paper was enforceable. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, should plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment have been granted?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Under N.Y. R. Civ. Prac. 113, facts had to be presented rather than mere general or specific denials in order to defeat a summary judgment motion. The court held that the bank's answer raised no issue as to any of the facts alleged in the complaint. The court further determined that the affidavits that the bank filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment merely repeated the various denials contained in the answer and were insufficient to raise an issue on a motion for summary judgment. As to the asserted defenses, the court concluded that the bank had no right to insist on evidence before paying the drafts because the letter of credit did not provide for that, and that no objections were made by the bank to the documents presented or to the failure to remove the paper from the dock within four days, so those objections were waived. Moreover, the court held that the alleged oral agreement for a test of the paper was unenforceable, and the resale of the paper was fair and properly minimized the assignee's damages. Accordingly, the court reversed the lower court's order and granted the assignee's motion for summary judgment.