DeCarlo v. HSBC Bank USA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeCarlo v. HSBC Bank USA

79 A.D.3d 465, 911 N.Y.S.2d 622

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 2010·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered February 19, 2009, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to payment on a bond that he found in 2004 among the possessions of his deceased sister, which bond had become payable in 1984. In light of defendant’s proof that the bond in question was one of nine that had been reported stolen in 1985, plaintiff could make a claim thereto only if he could demonstrate that he had purchased the bond for value (see Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v Walston & Co., 21 NY2d 219, 222 [1967]; Goldstein v Engel, 240 AD2d 280, 281 [1997]), and plaintiff acknowledged that he could not make such a demonstration on either his own or his sister’s behalf.

[466]*466We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, 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 February 19, 2009, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to payment on a bond that he found in 2004 among the possessions of his deceased sister, which bond had become payable in 1984. In light of defendant’s proof that the bond in question was one of nine that had been reported stolen in 1985, plaintiff could make a claim thereto only if he could demonstrate that he had purchased the bond for value (see Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v Walston & Co., 21 NY2d 219, 222 [1967]; Goldstein v Engel, 240 AD2d 280, 281 [1997]), and plaintiff acknowledged that he could not make such a demonstration on either his own or his sister’s behalf.

[466]*466We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

DeCarlo v. HSBC Bank USA, 79 A.D.3d 465, 911 N.Y.S.2d 622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

79 A.D.3d 465 (DeCarlo v. HSBC Bank USA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related