Opinion
January 4, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Alvin F. Klein, J., Eugene Nardelli, J.
Having followed the express language of the endorsements, defendant cannot be held liable, and this is so even though the endorsements directed that the money be deposited into an account held by someone other than the endorsing party (Spielman v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 60 N.Y.2d 221). A motion for renewal that does not present new facts is properly considered one for reargument only (Luming Cafe v. Birman, 125 A.D.2d 180). Here, all of the pertinent facts presented on the motion for renewal had already been presented on the motion for summary judgment, except for the assertion that the person making the endorsement lacked the authority to do so. Even if that assertion were considered a new fact, and not a conclusion of law, we would note that the offending attorney in Spielman (supra) also lacked authority to endorse the check he deposited.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Asch, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.