Bradford Trust Co. v. Citibank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bradford Trust Co. v. Citibank, N. A.

92 A.D.2d 458, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16648

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.2d 458 (Bradford Trust Co. v. Citibank, N. A.) 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

Bradford Trust Co. v. Citibank, N. A., 92 A.D.2d 458, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted and this court certifies the following question: “Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this court, properly made, especially with respect to whether the unrestricted payee’s indorsement of the forged check, upon presentment without further indorsement by a holder who bore no apparent relationship to the payee in the latter’s fiduciary capacity, should have put the depository bank on notice as to the possibility of a claim (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-117, subd [b]; § 3-304, subd [2]), the ignoring of such notice constituting negligence as found in Underpinning & Foundation Constructors v Chase Manhattan Bank (46 NY2d 459) or alluded to in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v Chemical Bank (57 NY2d 439)?” Concur — Silverman, J. P., Bloom, Fein and Alexander, JJ., concur.

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

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted and this court certifies the following question: “Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this court, properly made, especially with respect to whether the unrestricted payee’s indorsement of the forged check, upon presentment without further indorsement by a holder who bore no apparent relationship to the payee in the latter’s fiduciary capacity, should have put the depository bank on notice as to the possibility of a claim (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-117, subd [b]; § 3-304, subd [2]), the ignoring of such notice constituting negligence as found in Underpinning & Foundation Constructors v Chase Manhattan Bank (46 NY2d 459) or alluded to in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v Chemical Bank (57 NY2d 439)?” Concur — Silverman, J. P., Bloom, Fein and Alexander, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 458, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradford-trust-co-v-citibank-n-a-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack