You are here: / / Bank’s Duty With Respect to Negligent Dishonoring of a Cashier’s Check ...
, ,

Bank’s Duty With Respect to Negligent Dishonoring of a Cashier’s Check 

The plaintiff’s sued in negligence based on the defendants’ dishonoring of a cashier’s check.  The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of the negligence counts:

The plaintiff’s first three causes of action were premised upon the theory that it suffered damages as a result of the defendants’ negligence. “To establish a cause of action sounding in negligence, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty on defendant’s part to plaintiff, breach of the duty and damages” (. As relevant here, “[t]he duty of a payor bank . . . to a noncustomer depositor of a check is derived solely from UCC 4-301 and 4-302” … . In this case, where the defendants were together alleged to be the payor bank (see UCC 4-105[b]) that was not also the depository bank (see UCC 4-105[a]), they were accountable for paying the amount of the cashier’s check, whether properly payable or not, if they “retain[ed] the item beyond midnight of the banking day of receipt without settling for it” (UCC 4-302[a]), or, if after authorizing a timely provisional settlement, they failed to revoke such settlement prior to making final payment and before the “[m]idnight deadline” (UCC 4-104[1][h]), by either returning the check, or sending written notice of dishonor or nonpayment (see UCC 4-301, 4-302). Thus, the only duty which the defendants owed to the plaintiff was to pay the check, return the check, or send notice of dishonor … . As the complaint failed to allege that, upon the defendants’ failure to pay the check, they breached their duty to either return the check or send notice of dishonor, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the first three causes of action, all of which sounded in negligence.  Kenin Kerveng Tung, PC v JP Morgan Chase & Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 02223, 2011-11371, 2012-040089, Index No 11885/11, 2nd Dept, 4-3-13

 

You might also like
THE DRAM SHOP ACT DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOR OF THE INTOXICATED PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
AWARDING FATHER SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY DID NOT HAVE A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE RECORD, MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS NOT A BINDING REAL ESTATE CONTRACT; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT, BASED ON “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE,” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED THERE HAD BEEN NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY IN THE PAST AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE ALLEYWAY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A LADDER SHIFTS OR SLIDES FOR NO APPARENT REASON A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS ESTABLISHED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY THE LEASE OR ANY STATUTE TO REPAIR THE FLOOR OF A WALK-IN FREEZER IN THE LEASED PREMISES; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DENTS IN THE METAL FLOOR CAUSED HIS LADDER TO FALL OVER; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE EXISTS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE LAW DAY CLOSING WAS WILLFUL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION TO RETAIN THE DOWN PAYMENT PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING THE RETURN OF THE DOWN PAYMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

Absence of “Altering” and Readily Observable Risk Precluded Suit Late Notice of Claim Allowed in Absence of Reasonable Excuse