Schmidt v. Fleet Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmidt v. Fleet Bank

280 A.D.2d 260, 719 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 902

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 260 (Schmidt v. Fleet Bank) 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

Schmidt v. Fleet Bank, 280 A.D.2d 260, 719 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered May 24, 2000, which, upon the prior grant of defendant Republic National Bank’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Cross appeal from the same judgment unanimously dismissed, without costs, on the ground that defendant is not aggrieved by it.

Since we affirm in this case and in Feinstein v Fleet Bank (280 AD2d 260 [decided herewith]) based upon the lack of merit in plaintiffs’ claims, we need not address the issue of whether Judiciary Law § 497 (7) (a) provides the bank with a blanket release with respect to IOLA accounts. We find, as did the motion court, that there is no evidence raising a question of fact as to whether or not “the bank, with knowledge of the fiduciary’s diversion of trust funds, accept[ed] such funds in payment of a personal obligation owed by the fiduciary to the bank * * * or the bank otherwise has actual knowledge or notice that a diversion is to occur or is ongoing” (see, Home Sav. v Amoros, 233 AD2d 35, 39). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered May 24, 2000, which, upon the prior grant of defendant Republic National Bank’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Cross appeal from the same judgment unanimously dismissed, without costs, on the ground that defendant is not aggrieved by it.

Since we affirm in this case and in Feinstein v Fleet Bank (280 AD2d 260 [decided herewith]) based upon the lack of merit in plaintiffs’ claims, we need not address the issue of whether Judiciary Law § 497 (7) (a) provides the bank with a blanket release with respect to IOLA accounts. We find, as did the motion court, that there is no evidence raising a question of fact as to whether or not “the bank, with knowledge of the fiduciary’s diversion of trust funds, accept[ed] such funds in payment of a personal obligation owed by the fiduciary to the bank * * * or the bank otherwise has actual knowledge or notice that a diversion is to occur or is ongoing” (see, Home Sav. v Amoros, 233 AD2d 35, 39). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 260, 719 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-fleet-bank-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack