The IAS Court correctly held that defendant's acceptance of drafts for deposit without endorsements was commercially unreasonable as a matter of law (UCC 3-419, [3]; see, Tonelli v Chase Manhattan Bank, 41 N.Y.2d 667), and that the authority of plaintiff's agent to approve the drafts was no defense where, as here, the drafts contained no endorsements whatsoever (compare, Rohrbacher v BancOhio Natl. Bank, 171 A.D.2d 533). Contrary to defendant's argument first raised on appeal, plaintiff, as drawee of the drafts, has standing to assert a cause of action in conversion against defendant, the depositary bank (see, Millens v Kingston Trust Co., 118 Misc.2d 512).
We also agree with the IAS Court that UCC 4-207 (4) expressly applies only to a claim for breach of warranty, and should not be applied to a claim for conversion.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.