Sumner v. Extebank
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- In the Matter of Excello Press, Inc., Debtor. Appeal of Metlife Capital Credit Corporation (7th Cir. 1989)
- First Bank of South Dakota (National Ass'n) v. VonEye (S.D. 1988)
- SNCB CORPORATE FINANCE LIMITED v. Schuster (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
- European American Bank v. Sackman Mortgage Corp. (In re Sackman Mortgage Corp.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1993)
- In re Winer (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1984)
- Atlas MF Mezzanine Borrower LLC v. Macquarie Texas Loan Holder LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Atlas MF Mezzanine Borrower LLC v. Macquarie Texas Loan Holder LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Specifin Mgt. LLC v. Elhadidy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Citibank, N.A. v. Solow (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Christoforou v. Lown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to appellants, by reversing so much of the order as granted judgment to defendant and dismissed the complaint, and by reinstating the order of Trial Term, which ordered a new trial, and as so modified, affirmed.
Plaintiffs contend that defendant’s private sale of stock held as collateral was improper under section 9-504 of the Uniform Commercial Code because the sale price was unreasonably low. At trial, plaintiffs presented evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the corporation’s sole asset, an oil tanker, was worth at least $1,650,000 at the time of the sale. The trial court set aside 0 the verdict for plaintiffs as against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial.
The Appellate Division went one step further and entered judgment for defendant. In doing so, that court made new factual findings and thereby substituted itself for the jury. The Appellate Division had the power only to order a new trial in such circumstances unless there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498). There having been sufficient evidence, it was error to enter judgment for defendant.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.
Order modified, with costs to appellants, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.