Rosenberg v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Bank of New York

186 A.D.2d 496, 589 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12442

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 496 (Rosenberg 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

Rosenberg v. Bank of New York, 186 A.D.2d 496, 589 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered March 4, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court’s determination that the third-party defendant surety failed to come forward with evidentiary support for its claim that the indemnity bond could be rescinded. The terms of the bond are clear and unambiguous. The surety agreed to make the bank whole if it paid out to the wrong party, and the thrust of the plaintiff’s suit is that the bank did just that. The plaintiff’s present possession of the disputed depository receipts does not establish that the receipts were not stolen, lost or misplaced. There is no basis for the claim of mutual mistake, or the allegation that the bank is guilty of commercial bad faith. The surety did not act on the representations of the bank; rather the surety acted on the representations of the fourth-party defendants (Federal Ins. Co. v Walker, 74 AD2d 772, 773, mod 53 NY2d 24). In this regard, while fraud by a creditor touching a surety contract annuls it (Matter of First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v Estate of Sherman, 250 App Div 339), the fourth-party defendant, not the bank, is the "creditor” in the circumstances presented. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered March 4, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court’s determination that the third-party defendant surety failed to come forward with evidentiary support for its claim that the indemnity bond could be rescinded. The terms of the bond are clear and unambiguous. The surety agreed to make the bank whole if it paid out to the wrong party, and the thrust of the plaintiff’s suit is that the bank did just that. The plaintiff’s present possession of the disputed depository receipts does not establish that the receipts were not stolen, lost or misplaced. There is no basis for the claim of mutual mistake, or the allegation that the bank is guilty of commercial bad faith. The surety did not act on the representations of the bank; rather the surety acted on the representations of the fourth-party defendants (Federal Ins. Co. v Walker, 74 AD2d 772, 773, mod 53 NY2d 24). In this regard, while fraud by a creditor touching a surety contract annuls it (Matter of First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v Estate of Sherman, 250 App Div 339), the fourth-party defendant, not the bank, is the "creditor” in the circumstances presented. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 496, 589 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-bank-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack