You are here: / / INTERMEDIARY BANK OWES NO DUTY TO BENEFICIARY OF AN ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER...
,

INTERMEDIARY BANK OWES NO DUTY TO BENEFICIARY OF AN ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER WHICH WAS BLOCKED BY A GOVERNMENT ORDER.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, reversing Supreme Court, dismissed the lawsuit by the intended beneficiary of an electronic funds transfer (EFT) against an intermediary bank which complied with a government order to freeze the transfer. The court held the intermediary bank owed no duty to the intended beneficiary and properly returned the funds to the originator’s bank when the government order was lifted. An intermediary bank simply facilitates the transfer from the originator’s bank to the beneficiary’s bank:

…[B]ased on the allegations of [the beneficiary’s] complaint, … the originator’s bank — rather than … the intended beneficiary of the failed EFT — was plainly “the entity that passed the EFT on to … the [intermediary] bank where it . . . rest[ed]” … until the federal block was released. It follows that [the originator’s bank] was “the only entity with a property interest in the stopped EFT …” and that, upon the release of the block, [the intermediary bank] properly refunded [the originator’s bank’s] payment for the EFT pursuant to UCC 4-A-402(4), given that the EFT had long since been cancelled by operation of law under UCC 4-A-211(4). It also follows that, pursuant to UCC 4-A-212, [the beneficiary] has no claim against [the intermediary bank] with respect to this transaction. [The intermediary bank] “owed nothing to … the beneficiary since an intermediary bank has no legal obligation to the beneficiary” … . Receivers of Sabena SA v Deutsche Bank A.G., 2016 NY Slip Op 05546, 1st Dept 7-14-16

 

BANKING LAW (INTERMEDIARY BANK OWES NO DUTY TO BENEFICIARY OF AN ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER WHICH WAS BLOCKED BY A GOVERNMENT ORDER)/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (INTERMEDIARY BANK OWES NO DUTY TO BENEFICIARY OF AN ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER WHICH WAS BLOCKED BY A GOVERNMENT ORDER)/UCC (INTERMEDIARY BANK OWES NO DUTY TO BENEFICIARY OF AN ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER WHICH WAS BLOCKED BY A GOVERNMENT ORDER)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1028 REQUIRES THAT THE COURT EXPEDITE A HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILDREN RETURNED TO HER; HERE THE HEARING WAS STARTED WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BUT WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS, A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
Causes of Action Based Upon Allegations of Violations of Martin Act Concerning Fraud in the Selling of Securities Allowed to Go Forward— Supreme Court Should Not Have Evaluated Merits on Motion to Dismiss
NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) IS A “POLICY ISSUE” WARRANTING DENIAL OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS AND THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
A Gallery, as Agent for an Artist, Was Obligated to Disclose All Material Facts Within the Scope of the Agency/The Failure to Disclose the Gallery’s Intention to Treat Prints Made from the Artist’s Originals as Belonging to the Gallery Precluded Any Claim of Ownership by the Gallery
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
“Direct Financial Loss” Caused by Employee Defined

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROVIDING ELECTRICITY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION; LAWSUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT... INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT.