Bloom v. Bank for Savings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bloom v. Bank for Savings

10 A.D.2d 861, 199 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10686

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

DecidedApril 11, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 861 (Bloom v. Bank for Savings) 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

Bloom v. Bank for Savings, 10 A.D.2d 861, 199 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the sum of $2,800 paid by defendant on two forged withdrawal orders on an account in the name of “ Shirley Bloom in trust for son Stuart Bloom”, plaintiff:, individually and as guardian ad litem for Stuart Bloom, an infant, appeals, by permission of the Appellate Term, from a resettled order of that court which (1) reversed a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the plaintiff and dismissed the complaint, with costs; (2) dismissed the appeal from the decision; and (3) deemed the title of the action “amended so as to substitute Shirley Bloom, Plaintiff, in the place of Shirley Bloom, Guardian ad Litem for Stuart Bloom, an infant.” Resettled order unanimously affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Appellate Term that there was no showing that the defendant failed to use the due care and diligence required of it in paying out the moneys in suit. (Cf. Appleby v. Erie County Sav. Bank, 62 N. Y. 12; Campbell v. Schenectady Sav. Bank, 114 App. Div. 337; Noah v. Bank for Sav., 171 App. Div. 191; Geitelsohn v. Citizens’ Sav. Bank, 17 Misc. 574.) We do not reach the question whether the proper party plaintiff was Shirley Bloom individually, or as guardian ad litem of the infant to whom, the trial court found, the moneys on deposit belonged, as the complaint was properly dismissed in any event and any liability of Shirley Bloom for costs would be the same (cf. N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 26). Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ.

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

In an action to recover the sum of $2,800 paid by defendant on two forged withdrawal orders on an account in the name of “ Shirley Bloom in trust for son Stuart Bloom”, plaintiff:, individually and as guardian ad litem for Stuart Bloom, an infant, appeals, by permission of the Appellate Term, from a resettled order of that court which (1) reversed a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the plaintiff and dismissed the complaint, with costs; (2) dismissed the appeal from the decision; and (3) deemed the title of the action “amended so as to substitute Shirley Bloom, Plaintiff, in the place of Shirley Bloom, Guardian ad Litem for Stuart Bloom, an infant.” Resettled order unanimously affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Appellate Term that there was no showing that the defendant failed to use the due care and diligence required of it in paying out the moneys in suit. (Cf. Appleby v. Erie County Sav. Bank, 62 N. Y. 12; Campbell v. Schenectady Sav. Bank, 114 App. Div. 337; Noah v. Bank for Sav., 171 App. Div. 191; Geitelsohn v. Citizens’ Sav. Bank, 17 Misc. 574.) We do not reach the question whether the proper party plaintiff was Shirley Bloom individually, or as guardian ad litem of the infant to whom, the trial court found, the moneys on deposit belonged, as the complaint was properly dismissed in any event and any liability of Shirley Bloom for costs would be the same (cf. N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 26). Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 861, 199 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-bank-for-savings-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack