Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Clemente Brothers Contracting Corp. v. Hafner-Milazzo

Court of Appeals of New York
14 N.E.3d 367 (2014)


Clemente Brothers Contracting Corporation (Clemente Brothers) (plaintiff) was a large, financially sophisticated entity. Clemente Brothers took out a loan and a line of credit from Capital One, N.A. (defendant). Clemente Brothers could draw from the line of credit by sending a drawdown request to Capital One signed by Jeffrey Clemente, Clemente Brothers’s principal. Under New York’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 4-406(2), a customer had 14 days after receiving an account statement within which the customer could recover from the bank on an improper payment the bank made due to a forgery. Within this 14-day window, the customer did not have to prove that the bank failed to exercise ordinary care. In addition, New York’s UCC § 4-406(4) provided that if a bank failed to exercise ordinary care in making a payment on a forged instrument, there is a one-year limit within which a customer could bring a claim for recovery. Clemente Brothers and Capital One agreed to shorten § 4-406(4)’s one-year period to 14 days. Clemente Brothers passed a corporate resolution acknowledging the 14-day requirement. Aprile Hafner-Milazzo (defendant) worked as a secretary for Clemente Brothers. Clemente Brothers discovered that Hafner-Milazzo was forging Clemente’s signature on drawdown requests to embezzle funds from Clemente Brothers. Clement Brothers notified Capital One of the fraud, and Capital One declared all of the company’s loan amounts due. Clemente Brothers brought suit against Hafner-Milazzo and Capital One. Capital One moved for summary judgment on the ground that Clemente Brothers failed to report the payments on the forged checks within the agreed-upon 14-day period. The trial court granted the motion, and the appellate court affirmed. The Court of Appeals of New York granted Clemente Brothers leave to appeal.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Lippman, C.J.)

Dissent (Pigott, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial