Opinion
October 28, 2000.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).
The record, including, in particular, the promissory note that defendant gave plaintiff, supports the trial courts finding that defendant authorized an overdraft on its account (UCC 4-401), waiving an earlier injunction prohibiting plaintiff from charging such account to pay such obligation. There was no prejudice to defendant resulting from the grant of plaintiff's motion to conform the pleadings to the proof, since defendant was on notice that the charge it authorized on its account was the obligation underlying the promissory note on which plaintiff had originally based its claim (see, Edenwald Constr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959).
ELLERIN, P.J., NARDELLI, LERNER, ANDRIAS, FRIEDMAN, JJ.