Opinion
June 3, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).
We find that no issue of fact is presented as to whether defendant took "such steps as [were] reasonably required to inform [plaintiff] in ordinary course" (UCC 1-201) of its decision not to renew a letter of credit it had previously issued in plaintiff's favor. There is no dispute that the notice of nonrenewal was timely delivered to plaintiff's mail room. Plaintiff's argument that delivery was not effected is based on the fact that the contact person included in plaintiff's address on the letter of credit was identified on the envelope containing the notice of nonrenewal solely by her surname. Plaintiff has offered evidence that, of the 1200 persons served by the mailroom, five bore this particular surname, and that, even though the notice of nonrenewal itself included the contact person's full name, its omission on the envelope resulted in a three month delay in delivery to the proper party.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the letter of credit contained no specific requirement that the notice be addressed to a particular person. As, in the absence of such requirement, defendant's delivery of the notice to plaintiff's own mailroom was clearly sufficient, summary judgment should be granted and the complaint dismissed.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.