Gregor J. Schaefer Sons, Inc. v. Watson

New York Supreme Court

Gregor J. Schaefer Sons, Inc. v. Watson

49 Misc. 2d 265, 267 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2219

DecidedFebruary 8, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Misc. 2d 265 (Gregor J. Schaefer Sons, Inc. v. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gregor J. Schaefer Sons, Inc. v. Watson, 49 Misc. 2d 265, 267 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2219 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Manuel W. Levine, J.

This is a motion by Franklin National Bank for a change of venue from Suffolk County to Nassau County. It is based upon section 94 of title 12 of the United States Code.

This motion was not made within 15 days after service of the demand (CPLR 511, subd. [b]). Moreover, in the opinion of this court the provisions of section 94 of title 12 of the United States Code do not warrant an interpretation that a national bank having branch offices in different counties may be sued only in the county in which it has its main office. Defendant bank maintains a number of offices in Suffolk County and conducts general business at such offices. It is therefore located in Suffolk County.

The cases relied upon by defendant are not deemed controlling upon this court. In no instance did they involve a bank having offices in both counties for the transaction of general business (cf. Buffum v. Chase Nat. Bank, 192 F. 2d 58, cert. den. 342 U. S. 944; Chemical Fats & Oils Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. Y. L. J., Nov. 12,1964, p. 16, col. 3). In the case of Buffum v. Chase Nat. Bank (supra) it was indicated that a different holding would have been made had the action been related to the business conducted by the bank in that State.

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

Manuel W. Levine, J.

This is a motion by Franklin National Bank for a change of venue from Suffolk County to Nassau County. It is based upon section 94 of title 12 of the United States Code.

This motion was not made within 15 days after service of the demand (CPLR 511, subd. [b]). Moreover, in the opinion of this court the provisions of section 94 of title 12 of the United States Code do not warrant an interpretation that a national bank having branch offices in different counties may be sued only in the county in which it has its main office. Defendant bank maintains a number of offices in Suffolk County and conducts general business at such offices. It is therefore located in Suffolk County.

The cases relied upon by defendant are not deemed controlling upon this court. In no instance did they involve a bank having offices in both counties for the transaction of general business (cf. Buffum v. Chase Nat. Bank, 192 F. 2d 58, cert. den. 342 U. S. 944; Chemical Fats & Oils Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. Y. L. J., Nov. 12,1964, p. 16, col. 3). In the case of Buffum v. Chase Nat. Bank (supra) it was indicated that a different holding would have been made had the action been related to the business conducted by the bank in that State.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 2d 265, 267 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregor-j-schaefer-sons-inc-v-watson-nysupct-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack