29th Street Corp. v. New York Community Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

29th Street Corp. v. New York Community Bank

2 A.D.3d 838, 769 N.Y.S.2d 734

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 29, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 838 (29th Street Corp. v. New York Community Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

29th Street Corp. v. New York Community Bank, 2 A.D.3d 838, 769 N.Y.S.2d 734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[839]*839In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and conversion, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated November 7, 2002, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A management company employee responsible for collecting rent payments from tenants of the plaintiff, 29th Street Corp., stole a portion of those payments by opening a checking account under the name “29th Street Company” at the defendant bank, depositing rent checks into that account, and withdrawing the proceeds. The defendant bank, which had no relationship with the plaintiff, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering expert evidence demonstrating that it acted in accordance with reasonable commercial standards when it accepted checks payable to “29th Street Corp.” and endorsed “29th Street” for deposit into the “29th Street Company” account (see UCC 3-419 [3]; Sullivan v Citibank, 306 AD2d 459 [2003]; Penny Tech. v Citibank, 248 AD2d 217 [1998]; Moore v Richmond Hill Sav. Bank, 117 AD2d 27 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[839]*839In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and conversion, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated November 7, 2002, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A management company employee responsible for collecting rent payments from tenants of the plaintiff, 29th Street Corp., stole a portion of those payments by opening a checking account under the name “29th Street Company” at the defendant bank, depositing rent checks into that account, and withdrawing the proceeds. The defendant bank, which had no relationship with the plaintiff, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering expert evidence demonstrating that it acted in accordance with reasonable commercial standards when it accepted checks payable to “29th Street Corp.” and endorsed “29th Street” for deposit into the “29th Street Company” account (see UCC 3-419 [3]; Sullivan v Citibank, 306 AD2d 459 [2003]; Penny Tech. v Citibank, 248 AD2d 217 [1998]; Moore v Richmond Hill Sav. Bank, 117 AD2d 27 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 838, 769 N.Y.S.2d 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/29th-street-corp-v-new-york-community-bank-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack