You are here: / Bank Properly Reversed Wire Transfer to Plaintiff’s Account After...

Search Results

/ ,

Bank Properly Reversed Wire Transfer to Plaintiff’s Account After Learning Payment Was Not Authorized by the Holder of the Account from Which the Money Was Transferred—Plaintiff, Which Had Provided the Fake Buyer with Products Ostensibly Purchased with the Funds Initially Transferred to Plaintiff’s Account, Was Not Entitled to Those Funds Because the Funds Had Been Properly Returned by the Defendant Banks Pursuant to the Wire-Transfer Provisions of the UCC

The Second Department determined summary judgment in favor of the defendant banks (TD Bank and Eastern Bank) was properly granted.  Plaintiff, Golden Door, sold watches worth $71,000 to a fake buyer after the money was wired from the ostensible buyer's (MHIC's) account at defendant Eastern Bank to plaintiff's account in defendant TD Bank.  It turned out that the wire transfer was the result of the “hacking” of ostensible buyer's account. When Eastern Bank was notified the buyer had not authorized the transfer, Eastern Bank notified TD Bank which then reversed the transfer of the $71,000. Plaintiff sued for the $71,000.  The Second Department found that, under the wire-transfer provisions of the UCC, plaintiff was not entitled to the $71,000:

Under Article 4-A, a funds transfer is initiated by a “payment order,” which is an instruction from the person making the payment (the “originator”), to a “receiving” or “intermediary” bank to transfer the funds to the bank account of the beneficiary, normally in the “beneficiary's bank” (UCC 4-A-103, 4-A-104). Here, MHIC was indicated as the originator, Eastern Bank was the receiving bank, Golden Door was the beneficiary, and TD Bank was the beneficiary's bank.

Under Article 4-A, “a beneficiary's bank accepts a payment order when the bank pays the beneficiary by crediting the beneficiary's account and notifying the beneficiary of the right to withdraw the credit” (…see UCC 4-A-209[a]; 4-A-405[1][i]). Once the beneficiary's bank accepts the payment order, a cancellation of the order is not effective unless the beneficiary's bank agrees and, as relevant here, the order was unauthorized in the first place (see UCC 4-A-211[3][b]…). “If the payment order is cancelled . . . the beneficiary's bank is entitled to recover from the beneficiary any amount paid to the beneficiary to the extent allowed by the law governing mistake and restitution” (UCC 4-A-211[3][b]). Once cancelled, “the acceptance [of the payment order] is nullified and no person has any right or obligation based on the acceptance” (UCC 4-A-211[5], Comment 4, Case #1).

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants established prima facie that the cancellation of the payment order was effective. The defendants submitted evidence that TD Bank, the beneficiary's bank, agreed to the cancellation, and that MHIC had not authorized the transfer (see UCC 4-A-211[3][b], Comment 1). The defendants further established prima facie that TD Bank was authorized to recover payment from Golden Door in the amount of the cancelled transfer in accordance with the “law governing mistake and restitution” (UCC 4-A-211[3][b]). The applicable doctrine of restitution is the “discharge for value” rule. Under that rule, ” [a] creditor of another or one having a lien on another's property who has received from a third person any benefit in discharge of the debt or lien, is under no duty to make restitution therefor, although the discharge was given by mistake of the transferor as to his interests or duties, if the transferee made no misrepresentation and did not have notice of the transferor's mistake'” (…quoting Restatement of Restitution § 14[1]). Although Golden Door had made no misrepresentation, the defendants established that Golden Door had notice that the transfer from MHIC was given by “mistake,” or was unauthorized. Specifically, the transfer order indicated that the transferor was MHIC, which was not Golden Door's “customer,” was not indebted to Golden Door, and had no apparent relationship with it or its “customer” (see UCC 4-A-211, Comment 4, Cases #2-#4…). Accordingly, Golden Door could not, under the discharge for value rule, retain the funds that had been transferred into its account. In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing, Golden Door failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Golden Door V & I Inc v TD Bank, 2014 NY Slip Op 08960, 2nd Dept 12-24-14


 

/ ,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action/Although Not Demonstrated Here, the Court Noted that Comparative Negligence Is a Valid Defense to a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff in his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff was impaled on an uncapped piece of vertical rebar.  (Although not the case here, the court noted that plaintiff's comparative negligence is a valid defense in a Labor Law 241 (6) action.):

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed … . The provision requires owners and contractors to comply with specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor … . The particular safety rule or regulation relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete specifications, and not simply set forth general safety standards … . Comparative negligence is a valid defense to a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … .

Here, the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) was predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]), which provides that “floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials and from sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]). Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23.17[e][2]) is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) … . However, it has no application where the object that caused the plaintiff's injury was an integral part of the work being performed … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by showing that there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to their allegation that the uncapped rebar was an integral part of the work that was not subject to the cited regulation …, or as to whether the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident … . Lopez v NYC Dept of Envtl Protection, 2014 NY Slip Op 08963, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/

Arbitrator Exceeded His/Her Powers by Awarding More than the Requested Amount in Damages—Award Properly Vacated

The Second Department explained that the arbitrator exceeded his/her powers by awarding more than the requested damages:

An arbitration award may be vacated if the court finds that the rights of a party were prejudiced by (1) corruption, fraud, or misconduct in procuring the award; (2) partiality of an arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator exceeding his or her power; or (4) the failure to follow the procedures of CPLR article 75 (see CPLR 7511[b]). In addition, an arbitration award may be vacated if it violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power … .

An arbitrator's authority “extends to only those issues that are actually presented by the parties” …, and an arbitrator exceeds his or her authority by reaching issues not raised by the parties … . Here, the arbitrator awarded the petitioner $43,000 in damages based on the amount due under the subject contract, although the petitioner sought only $34,920 in damages for work done above and beyond the contract. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly vacated the award as issued in excess of the arbitrator's authority … . Matter of Slocum v Madariaga, 2014 NY Slip Op 09005, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/

Supreme Court Erred In Refusing to Appoint a Guardian—However, Petitioner Was Not the Appropriate Choice for the Guardian

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the appointment of a guardian for Mae R, who was 91, was necessary. The Second Department further found that the petitioner was not the appropriate choice for a guardian.  [In addition, the court noted that, in absence of bad faith, it was an abuse of discretion for Supreme Court to order petitioner to pay the fees for the court evaluator and appointed attorney.]  The court explained the relevant law and the facts:

Under Mental Hygiene Law article 81, a court may appoint a guardian for a person or a person's property upon determining, by clear and convincing evidence, that the requirements of article 81 have been met (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.02[a][2], 81.12[a]…). Before a court may appoint a guardian, it must determine (1) that a guardian is “necessary to provide for the personal needs of that person, including food, clothing, shelter, health care, or safety and/or to manage the property and financial affairs of that person”; and (2) that “the person agrees to the appointment, or that the person is incapacitated” within the meaning of the statute (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][1], [2]…). The statute specifies the relevant considerations and issues in the determination of the need for a guardian, and expressly requires that the court consider the report of the court evaluator (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a]) and the “sufficiency and reliability of available resources” that may satisfy the needs of the proposed ward without requiring the appointment of a guardian (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][2]…). Even where the court finds that appointment of a guardian is necessary, it is not required to appoint the person proposed by the petitioner … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, which rejected the recommendation of the court evaluator, the petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Mae R. is an incapacitated person as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02(b). The evidence at the hearing established that Mae R., a 91-year-old woman who presently resides by herself in her two-family home in Queens, is likely to suffer harm because she is unable to provide for her personal needs and manage her property, and does not adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of her limited abilities (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b][1], [2]…).

The evidence established, among other things, that, until recently, Mae R. managed her person and property with the daily assistance of a tenant who previously resided with her, and Mae R.'s grandniece, both of whom testified at the hearing and were interviewed by the court evaluator. The evidence further established that, subsequently, Mae R. executed a health care proxy and power of attorney in favor of a neighbor, and a last will and testament bequeathing her entire estate to this neighbor, who procured the attorney who drafted the alleged directives and testamentary instrument. At an interview with the court-appointed evaluator, however, Mae R. did not recall issuing the directives and testamentary instrument. Indeed, she told the court-appointed evaluator that she wished to leave her estate to family members. Further, witnesses at the hearing had heard Mae R. say that the same neighbor “makes me say things I don't mean and then I forget.” Matter of Loftman …, 2014 NY Slip Op 08998, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ ,

Questions of Fact Re: Whether School Owed Duty of Care to Student Struck by a Car While Playing Tag Five Minutes Before School Began and Whether a Breach of that Duty Proximately Caused the Injury

The First Department determined there were issues of fact raised concerning the school's duty to the plaintiff, an eighth grade student, after he was discharged from a school bus five minutes before school began.  The student was struck by a car when he darted or was pushed into the street while playing tag:

Although the driver of the car was not negligent in causing the accident …, the record presents issues of fact as to whether defendant [board of education] owed a duty of care to protect the infant plaintiff from traffic hazards after he was discharged by the school bus in front of the school, five minutes before the school day would begin …, and whether that duty was breached by the school's failure to provide adequate safety measures, such as traffic barricades, proximately causing the injury … . Mamadou S v Feliciano, 2014 NY Slip OP 08909, 1st Dept 12-23-14

 

/ , ,

Plaintiff-Resident of an Adult Care Facility Did Not Have Standing to Object to An Informal Procedure Used by the Department of Health (DOH) Re: the Inspection of Adult Care Facilities (Affording a Meeting Between the Facility and DOH Prior to the Publication of an Inspection Report)—Standing to Challenge Governmental Action Discussed in Some Depth

The First Department determined that the plaintiff in a class action suit did not have standing to object to a procedure used by the Department of Health (DOH) re: its inspection of adult care facilities.  Plaintiff is a resident of an adult care facility. The DOH inspection review process (IRP) affords the operators of adult care facilities the opportunity for an informal one-hour meeting with DOH staff after an inspection report is drafted but before it is published.  Plaintiff alleged the informal meeting was not authorized by any regulation and hampered residents' rights re: grievances against a residential care facility:

Since plaintiff is challenging DOH's implementation of the IRP, a governmental action, he must establish that he has standing to do so by showing an “injury in fact,” meaning that plaintiff will actually suffer harm by the challenged administrative action and that the injury asserted by him falls “within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … . The alleged injury or harm must also be in some way different from that of the public at large … .

Although plaintiff alleges that the IRP process favors adult home operators by allowing them to privately address adverse findings or corrective actions DOH identifies, without any input by residents of the adult home, plaintiff does not otherwise articulate how he is disadvantaged by this process, how the outcomes of some of these investigations would have been different had residents been permitted to participate in the IRP, or that the substandard living conditions or mistreatment he complains of are attributable to DOH's implementation of the IRP. The only “injury” plaintiff alleges is that resolution of residents' complaints are delayed when an adult home operator contests the outcome of an investigation and residents are not aware of or notified that any particular complaint is subject to an IRP. These allegations are far too generalized and speculative to satisfy the “injury in fact” requirement that would confer plaintiff with standing to challenge the procedures DOH has implemented … . Plaintiff does not articulate any harm or injury that he will suffer that is in some way an identifiable interest of his own, different from that of the public at large… .

Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class of adult home residents are also outside the “zone of interests” sought to be protected by the applicable statutory and regulatory framework under which the agency has acted … . DOH is vested with the authority to establish the procedures by which complaints are investigated and violations corrected (see Social Services Law § 461-o, 18 NYCRR § 486.2[a]). Moreover, DOH's enforcement powers are exceedingly broad, ranging from the imposition of civil penalties to the revocation, suspension or limitation of an operating certificate, after a hearing. DOH can even request that the Attorney General seek injunctive relief or criminally prosecute an operator for any violation or threatened violations of law or regulation (see SSL § 460—d; 18 NYCRR § 486.4[b]; see also 18 NYCRR §§ 486.4[b]-[h]). The governing regulatory scheme–which plaintiff does not challenge–plainly contemplates dialogue between DOH and adult home operators during the inspection process. Rather than providing for universal participation by residents in that process, they are expressly excluded from disclosure of investigation outcomes that are being contested by the operator (see Social Services Law §§ 461-a[1], [2][b], [2][c]; 461-d[3][b], [c], [g]; 461-o; 18 NYCRR 486.2[o]). The IRP is, therefore, wholly consistent with the enabling statutes. Bloomfield v Cannavo, 2014 NY Slip OP 08902, 1st Dept 12-23-14


/

CPL 330.30 Motions Based Upon Matters Outside the Record Properly Denied/Although Not the Case Here, Such Motions Might Be Deemed Premature CPL 440.10 Motions and, As Such, Considered by the Trial Court/Concurring/Dissenting Opinions Disagreed About Whether the Persistent Felony Offender Statute, Which Allows the Judge to Exercise Discretion in Applying the Statute, Violates Apprendi v New Jersey (Requiring Facts Upon Which an Enhanced Sentence May Be Based to Be Decided by the Jury Under a Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard)

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, determined that motions to set aside the verdict (Criminal Procedure Law [CPL] 330.30) made in two the cases before the court were properly denied because they raised issues which were outside the record. The court further determined that the persistent felony offender statute (PFO) at issue in one of the cases was properly applied. The court noted that, in some situations, 330.30 motions might be deemed (premature) motions to vacate the conviction (CPL 440.10) and considered by the trial court in that context, but no attempt to invoke CPL 440.10 was made here.  Concurring and dissenting opinions dealt with whether the persistent felony offender statute (PFO) violated Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 (2000), because factual findings supporting an enhanced sentence are made by the judge, not the jury, and whether the motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the courtroom was closed to the public for part of the trial should have been considered as a (premature) CPL 440.10 motion to set aside the conviction. People v Giles, 2014 NY Slip Op 08871, CtApp 12-18-14

 

/ ,

Violation of Labor Law Can Serve as a Basis for a Damages Action by a Police Officer Against the City Re: Injuries Suffered on the Job

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined that a violation of Labor Law 27-a can serve as the basis of a damages action by a police officer injured while on the job.  Plaintiff officer was injured when she fell off a truck while loading wooden barricades:

With [the] understanding of the legislative intent to give broad application to GML § 205-e, we turn to defendants' challenge to plaintiff's cause of action for damages. To succeed on their summary judgment motion, defendants must establish “a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” … . For the reasons we discuss, defendants have failed to meet their burden.

In order to assert a claim under GML § 205-e, a plaintiff “must [1] identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, [2] describe the manner in which the [police officer] was injured, and [3] set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant's negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm” … . Defendants allege plaintiff cannot satisfy the first requirement because the Labor Law may not serve as a basis for her cause of action. We disagree.

As a predicate to her GML damages cause of action plaintiff relies specifically on Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1), which provides that “[e]very employer shall: (1) furnish to each of its employees, employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees.”

Defendants counter that because [Labor Law 27-a] lacks a private right of action plaintiff cannot base her GML § 205-e claim on section 27-a. However, that is exactly what GML § 205-e permits and what the Legislature intended. While it is true that [the Labor Law]  does not contain an express private right of action …, GML § 205-e does not require that the predicate for a police officer's action contain an existing right to sue. Gammons v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08869, CtApp 12-18-14

 

/ ,

Although the Landlord Can Sue Pursuant to the Accelerated Rent Clause and Is Not Under a Duty to Mitigate, the Out-of-Possession Tenant Should Be Afforded a Hearing On Whether the Accelerated Rent/Liquidated Damages Clause, Under the Facts, Constitutes an Unenforceable Penalty Because It Results In Recovery Grossly Disproportionate to the Landlord’s Actual Damages

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that, where the tenant has breached the lease and left the premises, the landlord can sue to enforce the rent acceleration clause and is under no duty to mitigate.  However, under the facts here, the tenant was entitled to a hearing to address whether the acceleration clause allows liquidated damages which are grossly disproportionate to the actual losses, and therefore constitutes an unenforceable penalty:

As a general matter parties are free to agree to a liquidated damages clause “provided that the clause is neither unconscionable nor contrary to public policy” … . Liquidated damages that constitute a penalty, however, violate public policy, and are unenforceable … . A provision which requires damages “grossly disproportionate to the amount of actual damages provides for a penalty and is unenforceable” … .

Whether a provision in an agreement is “an enforceable liquidation of damages or an unenforceable penalty is a question of law, giving due consideration to the nature of the contract and the circumstances” … . “The burden is on the party seeking to avoid liquidated damages[] to show that the stated liquidated damages are, in fact a penalty” … . Where a party establishes a penalty, the proper recovery is the amount of actual damages established by the party … .

Defendants claim that because the acceleration clause permits [the landlord] to hold possession and immediately collect all rent due, the damages are grossly disproportionate to the landowner's actual damages. They contend this is a windfall that allows [the landlord] to double dip—–get the full rent now and hold the property. On its face this argument is compelling because arguably the ability to obtain all future rent due in one lump sum, undiscounted to present-day value, and also enjoy uninterrupted possession of the property provides the landowner with more than the compensation attendant to the losses flowing from the breach—–even though such compensation is the recognized purpose of a liquidated damages provision … . 172 Van Duzer Realty Corp v Globe Alumni Student Assistance Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08872, CtApp 12-18-14

 

/

Breach of Contract Lawsuit Precluded by Claimant’s Failure to Comply With Notice Requirements Which Were Conditions Precedent—Alleged Misconduct by Defendant Did Not Prevent Compliance with Conditions Precedent—Conditions Precedent Not Waived by Defendant’s Participation In an Attempt to Resolve the Dispute

The Third Department noted that, absent any claim that defendant's misconduct prevented claimant from fulfilling the notice requirements in the contract, the notice requirements were conditions precedent which, because they were not met, precluded the breach of contract lawsuit:

Claimant alleged seven specific items of damages, each of which was subject to contract provisions requiring that notice be provided to defendant within 10 work days and that certain records be kept and submitted to defendant. The contract provided that “[t]he notification and record-keeping provisions of this Contract shall be strictly complied with for disputes of any nature and are a condition precedent to any recovery” … . No party can prevail on a breach of contract claim if that party has failed to perform a specified condition precedent … . According to the contract, the contractor's failure to supply the required notice and submit the required records is deemed a waiver of any related claim by the contractor, “notwithstanding the fact that [defendant] may have actual notice of the facts and circumstances which comprise such dispute and is not prejudiced by said failure.”

Defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof that claimant did not comply with the condition precedent, in that claimant did not provide timely notice for the alleged items of damages and did not timely submit the required records … . In response, claimant did not provide proof that it complied with the notice and record-keeping requirements, but argued that defendant waived noncompliance, had actual knowledge of the disputed items and prevented claimant from complying with those requirements. Those arguments are unavailing. Fahs Constr Group Inc v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 0885, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

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