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
THE REQUEST TO POLL THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISCHARGED THE JURY FOREMAN FOR ARGUING WITH ONE OR MORE JURORS WITHOUT INTERVIEWING ALL INVOLVED (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT).
Medical Examiner’s Testimony Did Not Rule Out the Possibility that Someone Other than the Defendant Contributed DNA to a Mixture from At Least Three Persons—Conviction Reversed as Against the Weight of the Evidence
HOUSING AUTHORITY VIOLATED ITS OWN RULES AND EFFECTIVELY PREVENTED PETITIONER FROM MEETING THE PREREQUISITES FOR A HEARING ON HER REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER GRIEVANCE.
ABUTTING LANDOWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK, NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE RAPE FIRST AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT FIRST CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF TWO PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT COUNTS (FIRST DEPT).
NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

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