Decarlo v. HSBC Bank USA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Decarlo v. HSBC Bank USA

50 A.D.3d 262, 853 N.Y.S.2d 881

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

DecidedApril 1, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 262 (Decarlo v. HSBC Bank USA) 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

Decarlo v. HSBC Bank USA, 50 A.D.3d 262, 853 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered July 19, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it was the agent of the bond issuer, rather than the trustee of the funds for the bondholder’s benefit (see Ehag Eisenbahnwerte Holding AG. v Banca Nationala a Romaniei, 306 NY 242, 250-253 [1954]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, this action on the bond is subject to the 20-year statute of limitations (CPLR 211 [a]). Issues of fact whether defendant was prejudiced by the delay in the presentation of the bond for payment preclude summary judgment on defendant’s equitable defense of laches (see Hay Group v Nadel, 170 AD2d 398, 399 [1991]). Concur— Lippman, PJ., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered July 19, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it was the agent of the bond issuer, rather than the trustee of the funds for the bondholder’s benefit (see Ehag Eisenbahnwerte Holding AG. v Banca Nationala a Romaniei, 306 NY 242, 250-253 [1954]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, this action on the bond is subject to the 20-year statute of limitations (CPLR 211 [a]). Issues of fact whether defendant was prejudiced by the delay in the presentation of the bond for payment preclude summary judgment on defendant’s equitable defense of laches (see Hay Group v Nadel, 170 AD2d 398, 399 [1991]). Concur— Lippman, PJ., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 262, 853 N.Y.S.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decarlo-v-hsbc-bank-usa-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack