Peter Marino, Ltd. v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peter Marino, Ltd. v. Bank of New York

250 A.D.2d 485, 672 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6178

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

DecidedMay 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 485 (Peter Marino, Ltd. v. Bank of New York) 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

Peter Marino, Ltd. v. Bank of New York, 250 A.D.2d 485, 672 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme [486]*486Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 10, 1997, which, in an action to recover the amounts of checks drawn on plaintiffs’ accounts over allegedly unauthorized drawer signatures and forged indorsements, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant drawee bank’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and granted defendant depositary bank’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record contains no denial by the plaintiffs that Mr. Weiss was an authorized signatory on plaintiffs’ accounts. The claims against drawee Bank of New York for payment on forged drawer signatures were properly dismissed for failure to comply with the notification requirement set forth in the bank’s rules and regulations (see, Retail Shoe Health Commn. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 160 AD2d 47, 50).

The claims against depositary Citibank for payment on forged indorsements were also properly dismissed (see, Prudential-Bache Sec. v Citibank, 73 NY2d 263, 272). We note that plaintiffs have abandoned their argument, raised before the motion court, that the fictitious payee rule of UCC 3-405 (1) (b) is inapplicable under the circumstances.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme [486]*486Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 10, 1997, which, in an action to recover the amounts of checks drawn on plaintiffs’ accounts over allegedly unauthorized drawer signatures and forged indorsements, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant drawee bank’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and granted defendant depositary bank’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record contains no denial by the plaintiffs that Mr. Weiss was an authorized signatory on plaintiffs’ accounts. The claims against drawee Bank of New York for payment on forged drawer signatures were properly dismissed for failure to comply with the notification requirement set forth in the bank’s rules and regulations (see, Retail Shoe Health Commn. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 160 AD2d 47, 50).

The claims against depositary Citibank for payment on forged indorsements were also properly dismissed (see, Prudential-Bache Sec. v Citibank, 73 NY2d 263, 272). We note that plaintiffs have abandoned their argument, raised before the motion court, that the fictitious payee rule of UCC 3-405 (1) (b) is inapplicable under the circumstances.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 485, 672 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-marino-ltd-v-bank-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack