Schorr v. Bank of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schorr v. Bank of New York

112 Misc. 2d 684, 449 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3437

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 9, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 Misc. 2d 684 (Schorr v. Bank of New York) 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

Schorr v. Bank of New York, 112 Misc. 2d 684, 449 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3437 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed, with $10 costs, and judgment directed to be entered in favor jof defendant.

This action was brought to recover an amount debited from plaintiff’s checking account.

The charge card agreement between plaintiff merchant and defendant bank provided that in the event of a dispute between the merchant and a customer who paid by credit card, the bank could debit the merchant’s account for the [685]*685amount involved. Given Federal regulations permitting a card holder to withhold payment to the card issuing bank for the amount in controversy to the extent of the credit extended (see 12 CFR 226.13) this part of the agreement cannot be deemed unconscionable. Nor does the lack of a time limit for taking such action nullify the agreement, since a reasonable time will be implied (see City of New York v New York Cent. R.R. Co., 275 NY 287). The defendant debited plaintiff’s account less than three weeks after the date of the form in which the customer notified the issuing bank of the existence of the controversy. This time period should not be deemed unreasonable. Since no issue of fact exists and since, even on appeal, summary judgment may be awarded the nonmoving party, judgment should be entered in favor of defendant (see Wiseman v Knaus, 24 AD2d 869; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3212:23, p 443).

Farley, P. J., Slifkin and Di Paola, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed, with $10 costs, and judgment directed to be entered in favor jof defendant.

This action was brought to recover an amount debited from plaintiff’s checking account.

The charge card agreement between plaintiff merchant and defendant bank provided that in the event of a dispute between the merchant and a customer who paid by credit card, the bank could debit the merchant’s account for the [685]*685amount involved. Given Federal regulations permitting a card holder to withhold payment to the card issuing bank for the amount in controversy to the extent of the credit extended (see 12 CFR 226.13) this part of the agreement cannot be deemed unconscionable. Nor does the lack of a time limit for taking such action nullify the agreement, since a reasonable time will be implied (see City of New York v New York Cent. R.R. Co., 275 NY 287). The defendant debited plaintiff’s account less than three weeks after the date of the form in which the customer notified the issuing bank of the existence of the controversy. This time period should not be deemed unreasonable. Since no issue of fact exists and since, even on appeal, summary judgment may be awarded the nonmoving party, judgment should be entered in favor of defendant (see Wiseman v Knaus, 24 AD2d 869; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3212:23, p 443).

Farley, P. J., Slifkin and Di Paola, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 Misc. 2d 684, 449 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schorr-v-bank-of-new-york-nyappterm-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack