Legal Opinion
First International Bank of Israel, Ltd. v. L. Blankstein & Son, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 30, 1983PublishedCited by 84 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Jasen, J.
The critical issue presented on these appeals is whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover on two promissory notes as a holder in due course. We conclude that the bank was a holder in due course and in that capacity took the notes free of all personal defenses raised by the makers.
Beginning in 1976, plaintiff, an Israeli bank, lent money to defendant Leo Siegman, a leading Israeli diamond merchant, on the credit of his accounts receivable. These accounts often took the form of promissory notes made payable to Siegman by other diamond merchants to whom…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- In re the Estate of RothkoNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Ehrlich v. American Moninger Greenhouse Manufacturing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1970
- Telaro v. TelaroNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Chemical Bank v. HaskellNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Hall v. Bank of BlasdellNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by84 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. American Express Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Allied Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Kerby Saunders, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Griffon V, LLC v. 11 East 36th, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Ta-Chotani v. Doubleclick, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Kramer v. Interboro Mutual Indemnity InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.