Steinman v. Barclays Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinman v. Barclays Bank

276 A.D.2d 436, 715 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11090

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 436 (Steinman v. Barclays 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

Steinman v. Barclays Bank, 276 A.D.2d 436, 715 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered May 7, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action is premised upon the allegation that defendant Barclays Bank wrongfully withheld from plaintiff certain presumably canceled travelers’ checks, which checks were sought by plaintiff in a prior action, brought by plaintiff against, his former landlord, to establish that the checks had been stolen from plaintiff by his former landlord. It was, however, determined in the prior action, in an order from which plaintiff took no appeal, that Barclays had fully discharged any obligation it had to produce the sought checks. In any event, it is plain that plaintiff has no viable claim against Barclays, either for spoliation of evidence or for conspiring with his former landlord to prevent him from obtaining redress for the alleged theft of the checks. The record is devoid of proof of any act by Barclays, singly or in collusion with plaintiff’s former landlord, undertaken for the purpose of denying plaintiff a remedy for the purported theft of the checks.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered May 7, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action is premised upon the allegation that defendant Barclays Bank wrongfully withheld from plaintiff certain presumably canceled travelers’ checks, which checks were sought by plaintiff in a prior action, brought by plaintiff against, his former landlord, to establish that the checks had been stolen from plaintiff by his former landlord. It was, however, determined in the prior action, in an order from which plaintiff took no appeal, that Barclays had fully discharged any obligation it had to produce the sought checks. In any event, it is plain that plaintiff has no viable claim against Barclays, either for spoliation of evidence or for conspiring with his former landlord to prevent him from obtaining redress for the alleged theft of the checks. The record is devoid of proof of any act by Barclays, singly or in collusion with plaintiff’s former landlord, undertaken for the purpose of denying plaintiff a remedy for the purported theft of the checks.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 436, 715 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinman-v-barclays-bank-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack