Michaeli v. Greater New York Savings Bank

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Michaeli v. Greater New York Savings Bank

129 Misc. 2d 1096, 498 N.Y.S.2d 90, 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1683, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3124

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 8, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 Misc. 2d 1096 (Michaeli v. Greater New York Savings Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michaeli v. Greater New York Savings Bank, 129 Misc. 2d 1096, 498 N.Y.S.2d 90, 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1683, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment affirmed, with $25 costs.

It has been consistently held that teller’s checks are the equivalent of cash (Savemart, Inc. v Bowery Sav. Bank, 111 Misc 2d 947; Fur Funtastic v Kearns, 120 Misc 2d 794) and a bank is thus burdened with the duty of protecting innocent third parties by safeguarding said checks (Savemart, Inc. v Bowery Sav. Bank, supra). Consequently, we are of the opinion that the degree of care exercised by the bank should be the same as that employed in safeguarding its cash. A review of the record reveals that the bank failed to live up to this standard since no effective measures were used to deter the [1097]*1097theft of the blank checks. Although the bank took steps at the end of each day to see if any blank checks were missing and to place stop payment orders on such checks, this inured only to the benefit of the bank and not to innocent third parties.

We conclude that the failure of the bank to institute proper security measures substantially contributed to the theft and subsequent unauthorized signatures on the check in question. The defendant bank is therefore precluded from denying the authenticity of the instrument (see, Uniform Commercial Code § 3-406).

Pino, P. J., and Jones, J., concur; Kunzeman, J., taking no part.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment affirmed, with $25 costs.

It has been consistently held that teller’s checks are the equivalent of cash (Savemart, Inc. v Bowery Sav. Bank, 111 Misc 2d 947; Fur Funtastic v Kearns, 120 Misc 2d 794) and a bank is thus burdened with the duty of protecting innocent third parties by safeguarding said checks (Savemart, Inc. v Bowery Sav. Bank, supra). Consequently, we are of the opinion that the degree of care exercised by the bank should be the same as that employed in safeguarding its cash. A review of the record reveals that the bank failed to live up to this standard since no effective measures were used to deter the [1097]*1097theft of the blank checks. Although the bank took steps at the end of each day to see if any blank checks were missing and to place stop payment orders on such checks, this inured only to the benefit of the bank and not to innocent third parties.

We conclude that the failure of the bank to institute proper security measures substantially contributed to the theft and subsequent unauthorized signatures on the check in question. The defendant bank is therefore precluded from denying the authenticity of the instrument (see, Uniform Commercial Code § 3-406).

Pino, P. J., and Jones, J., concur; Kunzeman, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 Misc. 2d 1096, 498 N.Y.S.2d 90, 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1683, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michaeli-v-greater-new-york-savings-bank-nyappterm-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack