Amanat v. Bank Leumi Trust Co.

243 A.D.2d 257, 662 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9281
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 2, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 257 (Amanat v. Bank Leumi Trust Co.) 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
Amanat v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 243 A.D.2d 257, 662 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane J.), entered on or about April 26, 1996, which, in an action for money had and received, inter alia, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The operative allegations of the complaint are that defendant, a bank, received the proceeds of checks that plaintiff made payable to defendant, that plaintiff never duly authorized defendant to make payment of the funds received to any party whatsoever, and that defendant has refused plaintiff’s demand to return such funds received by defendant but “belonging” to plaintiff. These allegations were correctly held insufficient to state a cause of action for money had and received in that they failed to give notice of why money represented by checks made payable to defendant rightfully belongs to plaintiff (see, Stephans v Apóstol, 17 AD2d 982, 983, citing, inter alia, Belkor Knitwear Co. v Posner, 78 NYS2d 618, 620). The relevance of the allegation that plaintiff did not authorize disbursement of the money is not apparent absent an allegation that plaintiff maintained an account with defendant [258]*258or is otherwise entitled to the money. Since plaintiff asserts that he has already served an amended complaint and does not request leave to do so, we see no reason to modify to grant such leave. We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Colabella, JJ.

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

Related

Goel v. Ramachandran
111 A.D.3d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D.2d 257, 662 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amanat-v-bank-leumi-trust-co-nyappdiv-1997.