holding that bank is not liable for negligence to customer's creditors, and stating that requiring a bank to monitor its customer's account would "unreasonably expand banks' orbit of duty."Summary of this case from DALE v. ALA ACQUISITIONS I., INC.
January 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).
Plaintiff factor's cause of action for conversion against defendant bank was properly dismissed, it being clear that under the terms of both the Loan Security Agreement between plaintiff and its borrower and the Blocked Account Agreement between plaintiff, defendant and the borrower, the borrower, not defendant, was left with dominion and control over its other deposits with defendant. Plaintiff's cause of action for negligence against defendant was properly dismissed since to hold that banks owe a duty to their depositors' creditors to monitor the depositors' financial activities so as to assure the creditors' collection of the depositors' debts would be to unreasonably expand banks' orbit of duty. We have considered plaintiff's other contentions, including that there is a need for further disclosure, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.