Torres v. Marine Midland Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. Marine Midland Bank

267 A.D.2d 63, 699 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12723

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 63 (Torres v. Marine Midland 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

Torres v. Marine Midland Bank, 267 A.D.2d 63, 699 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered June 29, 1998, which, upon the prior grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denial of plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed plaintiff’s first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action and awarded plaintiff the sum of $15,436.74 on his third cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that the handwritten provision in the 1982 compromise order, directing that monies received on the infant plaintiff’s behalf be deposited into a specific money market account at defendant bank, took precedence over the order’s typewritten directive to the effect that the subject funds were to be deposited into the bank’s “highest interest bearing” account. This being the case plaintiff’s damages were properly limited to the amount of interest due by [64]*64reason of defendant bank’s conceded failure to deposit the infant plaintiffs funds in a money market account between 1984 and 1992. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered June 29, 1998, which, upon the prior grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denial of plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed plaintiff’s first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action and awarded plaintiff the sum of $15,436.74 on his third cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that the handwritten provision in the 1982 compromise order, directing that monies received on the infant plaintiff’s behalf be deposited into a specific money market account at defendant bank, took precedence over the order’s typewritten directive to the effect that the subject funds were to be deposited into the bank’s “highest interest bearing” account. This being the case plaintiff’s damages were properly limited to the amount of interest due by [64]*64reason of defendant bank’s conceded failure to deposit the infant plaintiffs funds in a money market account between 1984 and 1992. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 63, 699 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-marine-midland-bank-nyappdiv-1999.