Century Business Credit Corp. v. North Fork Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Century Business Credit Corp. v. North Fork Bank

246 A.D.2d 395, 668 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 290

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 395 (Century Business Credit Corp. v. North Fork 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

Century Business Credit Corp. v. North Fork Bank, 246 A.D.2d 395, 668 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 16, 1997, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for [396]*396review a prior order which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff factor’s cause of action for conversion against defendant bank was properly dismissed, it being clear that under the terms of both the Loan Security Agreement between plaintiff and its borrower and the Blocked Account Agreement between plaintiff, defendant and the borrower, the borrower, not defendant, was left with dominion and control over its other deposits with defendant. Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence against defendant was properly dismissed since to hold that banks owe a duty to their depositors’ creditors to monitor the depositors’ financial activities so as to assure the creditors’ collection of the depositors’ debts would be to unreasonably expand banks’ orbit of duty. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions, including that there is a need for further disclosure, and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 16, 1997, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for [396]*396review a prior order which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff factor’s cause of action for conversion against defendant bank was properly dismissed, it being clear that under the terms of both the Loan Security Agreement between plaintiff and its borrower and the Blocked Account Agreement between plaintiff, defendant and the borrower, the borrower, not defendant, was left with dominion and control over its other deposits with defendant. Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence against defendant was properly dismissed since to hold that banks owe a duty to their depositors’ creditors to monitor the depositors’ financial activities so as to assure the creditors’ collection of the depositors’ debts would be to unreasonably expand banks’ orbit of duty. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions, including that there is a need for further disclosure, and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 395, 668 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/century-business-credit-corp-v-north-fork-bank-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack