You are here: / / BANK WHICH ISSUED AN “OFFICIAL CHECK” DRAWN ON A DIFFERENT...
,

BANK WHICH ISSUED AN “OFFICIAL CHECK” DRAWN ON A DIFFERENT BANK, AFTER THE CUSTOMER’S FUNDS WERE WIRED TO THAT OTHER BANK (PURSUANT TO AN AGREED ARRANGEMENT), WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR UNDER A MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED THEORY FOR THE SUBSEQUENT MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE CHECK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined the defendant Signature Bank was not liable under the Uniform Commercial Code or under a money had and received theory for the misappropriation of an “official check” for $292,000:

According to the affidavit of Patrick Manzi, Signature’s senior vice president and director of bank operations, “[a]t the time in question, Signature did not issue its own official checks.” … [U]nder an agreement between Signature and Integrated Payment Systems Inc. (IPS), Signature customers were provided by IPS with computer software and check forms that gave them the capability, upon Signature’s approval, to print out a Signature “Official Check” at their own offices. Although such a check bore Signature’s logo and the signatures of Signature officers, and designated Signature as the “Drawer,” the check also indicated in the lower left corner that it was “Issued by Integrated Payment Systems Inc., Englewood, Colorado” through “JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Denver, Colorado.” In addition, the check bore Chase’s ABA routing number.

In sum, when a Signature customer requested the issuance of an official check, Signature would debit the customer’s account in the requested amount, wire the same amount to the IPS account at Chase, and notify the customer that it had permission to print out the check. In essence, official checks of this kind were drawn by Signature, not on its own account, but on the IPS account at Chase.

Using the above-described procedure, R & L [the Signature customer] procured the issuance of a Signature “Official Check” in the amount of $292,000, payable to … settlement agent, Steven J. Baum P.C.. The check identified R & L as the “Remitter.”… According to a principal of R & L, R & L “forwarded the $292,000 bank check to Kim Saunders, the title closer, who undertook on behalf of the title company . . . to forward this check to Steven J. Baum, P.C. to pay off the seller’s [sic] mortgage.”

It is undisputed that Steven J. Baum P.C., the payee of the check, never received it. The check was, through some unknown chain of events, misappropriated, improperly endorsed, and deposited into the joint account that the sellers of the underlying real property (defendants Richards and Massias) maintained at defendant TD Bank, N.A. The check was subsequently presented for payment to Chase, the drawee bank, which paid it … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 03483, First Dept 6-18-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE ACTION, CONTACT WITH A HANGING LIVE ELECTRIC WIRE, DEFENDANTS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE.
THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENTS ACT AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY’S RULES REQUIRED THAT THE HEARING OFFICER CONSIDER PETITIONER-TENANT’S ACCOMMODATION REQUEST TO KEEP AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOG IN HIS APARTMENT, THE HEARING OFFICER HAD RULED THE DOG WAS VICIOUS AND MUST BE REMOVED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance on the Doctrine of Mutual Mistake to Rescind a Valid Oral Contract
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine Whether Exigent Circumstances Justified Warrantless Forced Entry to an Apartment
LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE LANDLORD’S ACTION TO COLLECT RENT.
Landlord Not Entitled to Reformation of a Lease—Landlord Had Failed to Use Due Diligence Before Signing and Did Not Notice a Deletion Made by Plaintiff—Plaintiff Was Not Obligated to Highlight the Deletion
THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS UNDER A POLICY ISSUED TO THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO RENOVATE CONCRETE WALKWAYS; THE OWNER AND MANAGER ARE ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SLIP AND FALL ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY PAINTING THE WALKWAYS ALL THE SAME COLOR AND THEREBY DISGUISING A CHANGE IN ELEVATION (FIRST 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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION... PLAINTIFF’S DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE...