Bloom v. Bank for Savings

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bloom v. Bank for Savings

19 Misc. 2d 784, 193 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2932

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 2, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Misc. 2d 784 (Bloom v. Bank for Savings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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, 19 Misc. 2d 784, 193 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In our view of the evidence, 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. (Noah v. Bank for Sav., 171 App. Div. 191; Geitelsohn v. Citizens’ Sav. Bank, 17 Misc. 574; Appleby v. Erie County Sav. Bank, 62 N. Y. 12; Kelley v. Buffalo Sav. Bank, 180 N. Y. 171; Campbell v. Schenectady Sav. Bank, 114 App. Div. 337.) The proper party plaintiff in this action was Shirley Bloom, the depositor (Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112). Her motion to amend the title of the action to substitute the infant beneficiary of the account as the plaintiff in her stead should have been denied. The title of the action is deemed amended accordingly. (Cf. Grippo v. Di Vito, 7 A D 2d 913.)

Appeal from “ decision ” dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision (Both v. Hyatt, 7 A D 2d 992). The judgment should [785]*785be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to the defendant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

In our view of the evidence, 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. (Noah v. Bank for Sav., 171 App. Div. 191; Geitelsohn v. Citizens’ Sav. Bank, 17 Misc. 574; Appleby v. Erie County Sav. Bank, 62 N. Y. 12; Kelley v. Buffalo Sav. Bank, 180 N. Y. 171; Campbell v. Schenectady Sav. Bank, 114 App. Div. 337.) The proper party plaintiff in this action was Shirley Bloom, the depositor (Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112). Her motion to amend the title of the action to substitute the infant beneficiary of the account as the plaintiff in her stead should have been denied. The title of the action is deemed amended accordingly. (Cf. Grippo v. Di Vito, 7 A D 2d 913.)

Appeal from “ decision ” dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision (Both v. Hyatt, 7 A D 2d 992). The judgment should [785]*785be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to the defendant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Misc. 2d 784, 193 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-bank-for-savings-nyappterm-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack