From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brokerage Data Processing Corp. v. Eastchester Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 1972
39 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Opinion

June 29, 1972


Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 17, 1972, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion of defendant-appellant to dismiss the fourth cause of action granted. Appellant shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Plaintiff-respondent's dishonest employee, designated by it to sign checks with a coemployee, signed certain checks made out to fictitious payees, procured his coemployee's signature, indorsed the fictitious payees' names, and deposited the checks to his account in defendant bank. The fourth cause alleges negligence by defendant bank. Such a cause will not lie in these circumstances against the collecting bank. (See Chartered Bank v. American Trust Co., 47 Misc.2d 694; 48 Misc.2d 314, affd. 26 A.D.2d 623.) Commercial Trading Co. v. Trade Bank Trust Co. ( 286 App. Div. 722) avails plaintiff not; that suit was against drawee bank, which impleaded the collecting bank.

Concur — Stevens, P.J., McGivern, Markewich, Kupferman and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

Brokerage Data Processing Corp. v. Eastchester Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 1972
39 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)
Case details for

Brokerage Data Processing Corp. v. Eastchester Savings Bank

Case Details

Full title:BROKERAGE DATA PROCESSING CORPORATION, Respondent, v. EASTCHESTER SAVINGS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 29, 1972

Citations

39 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Citing Cases

Titan Air Conditioning v. Chase Manhattan BK

The defendants rely on section 3-405 (subd [1], par [c]) of the Uniform Commercial Code, analyzed in Board of…

Constructors v. Chase Manhattan

In Low v Merchants Nat. Bank ( 24 A.D.2d 322) it was held that a drawer of checks has no cause of action…