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

New York Supreme Court·Decided February 8, 1966·Published

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.

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

49 Misc. 2d 265 (Gregor J. Schaefer Sons, Inc. v. Watson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related