You are here: / / BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES...
, , ,

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department determined defendant bank’s (Capital One’s) motion for summary judgment in this forged-check negligence action was properly denied (without the need to consider the opposing papers). One of plaintiff corporation’s employees forged company checks made out to herself amounting to over $84,000. Plaintiff sued the bank for negligence pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) article 4:

Under article 4 of the UCC, with regard to repeated forgeries by the same wrongdoer, the customer’s failure to exercise reasonable care and promptness in examining its bank statements and to timely notify the bank of the forgeries in accordance with UCC 4-406(2)(b) generally will result in the customer being precluded from asserting claims against the bank in connection with the loss associated with any such forgeries … . However, the loss of repeated forgeries may be shifted back to the bank in the circumstance where the bank failed to use ordinary care in paying the forged checks … . With regard to the issue of ordinary care, UCC 4-103(3) provides that “in the absence of special instructions, action or non-action consistent with clearing house rules and the like or with a general banking usage not disapproved by this Article, prima facie constitutes the exercise of ordinary care.” Thus, under this “safe harbor” provision, a bank can ensure that its conduct at least prima facie meets an ordinary care standard, by showing that it acted in accordance with general banking rules or practices … . However, it is the bank, as the party that benefits from the “safe harbor” provision, that bears the burden of proving general clearing house rules or general banking usage in order to establish ordinary care … . …

Capital One did not meet its burden of showing that it acted in accordance with general banking rules or general clearing house rules, and therefore, it failed to demonstrate prima facie that it exercised ordinary care in paying the forged checks … .Capital One’s submissions failed to provide any evidentiary basis that its processing of the forged checks comported with general banking usage. Redgrave Elec. Maintenance, Inc. v Capital One, N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 0316, Second Dept 5-2-18

​BANKING LAW (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (BANKING LAW, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CHECKS (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FORGED CHECKS (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony Stating that She Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall Was Fatal to the Action—the Deposition Testimony Was Not Overcome by a “Feigned Issue” Subsequently Raised in an Affidavit or by Expert Opinion Evidence Alleging the Cause of the Fall
BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DID NOT DECIDE A MOTION MADE ON NOTICE, THE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT; THEREFORE, A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPRL 2221(A) IS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
ARBITRATION AWARD BY A RABBINICAL COURT IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION LAW DID NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY, UNCONSCIONABILITY IS NOT A STATUTORY GROUND FOR VACATING AN ARBITRATION AWARD (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRIST ALLEGED HE CALLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO TELL HER SHE SHOULD SEE ANOTHER PSYCHIATRIST, THE NEXT SCHEDULED APPOINTMENT WITH DEFENDANT WAS NOT CANCELLED; THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED AND RENDERED THE ACTION TIMELY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT
DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PROHIBIT A PARTY FROM BRINGING ANY FURTHER PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION, HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION; FATHER HAD NEVER FILED FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS OR FILED PETITIONS OUT OF ILL WILL OR SPITE (SECOND DEPT). ​

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

ARBITRATION AWARD BY A RABBINICAL COURT IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT... MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT...