Shapiro v. Snow Becker Krauss P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shapiro v. Snow Becker Krauss P. C.

208 A.D.2d 461, 617 N.Y.S.2d 470

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 461 (Shapiro v. Snow Becker Krauss P. C.) 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

Shapiro v. Snow Becker Krauss P. C., 208 A.D.2d 461, 617 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 28, 1993, which granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order of the same court and Justice, entered July 2, 1993, unanimously dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that defendant could not be held liable as an escrow agent, it being undisputed that the purported agreement between plaintiff Carole Shapiro and defendant’s client, Tolk, was never communicated to defendant before it disbursed the money given to it by Tolk, and to Tolk by plaintiffs, in accordance with Tolk’s instructions (see, 55 NY Jur 2d, Escrows, § 19). That the check plaintiffs gave Tolk was made payable to defendant’s escrow account did not transform defendant into an escrow agent with a fiduciary duty to inquire of plaintiffs as to any conditions attached to the payment of the check (see, Farago v Burke, 262 NY 229, 233). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 28, 1993, which granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order of the same court and Justice, entered July 2, 1993, unanimously dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that defendant could not be held liable as an escrow agent, it being undisputed that the purported agreement between plaintiff Carole Shapiro and defendant’s client, Tolk, was never communicated to defendant before it disbursed the money given to it by Tolk, and to Tolk by plaintiffs, in accordance with Tolk’s instructions (see, 55 NY Jur 2d, Escrows, § 19). That the check plaintiffs gave Tolk was made payable to defendant’s escrow account did not transform defendant into an escrow agent with a fiduciary duty to inquire of plaintiffs as to any conditions attached to the payment of the check (see, Farago v Burke, 262 NY 229, 233). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 461, 617 N.Y.S.2d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapiro-v-snow-becker-krauss-p-c-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack