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

Search Results

/ , ,

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

 

/

Absence of “Altering” and Readily Observable Risk Precluded Suit

The First Department determined plaintiff’s fall from a metal roof did not meet the criteria for a Labor Law 240(1) because attaching a temorary sign was not “altering” for purposes of the statute.  In addition the First Department determined the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence actions should be dismissed because the risks inherent in walking on a pitched metal roof were readily observable.  Bodtman v Living Manor Love, Inc, et al, 9703, 113921/08, 1st Dept 4-2-13

 

/ , , ,

Expired Fire Fighters’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Was Not “In Effect” Pursuant to Statute With Respect to Fire Fighters’ Mandated Contributions to Pension Plan

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the City of Yonkers Fire Fighters was not “in effect” within the meaning of Article 22 of the Retirement and Social Security Law.  For some purposes, the Retirement and Social Security Law deems a collective bargaining agreement to remain “in effect” after it has expired, until another agreement is reached.  If the collective bargaining agreement had been deemed to be “in effect” in this case, the firefighters would not have been required to contribute to their pensions, a requirement that was imposed only after the collective bargaining agreement expired.  Matter of City of Yonkers v Yonkers Fire Fighters …, 48, CtApp, 4-2-13

 

/ , ,

Discharge of Defense Attorney Was Abuse of Discretion; Issue Survives Guilty Plea 

The appellate division determined the trial court had abused its discretion in discharging defendant’s attorney and that the issue had not been forfeited by defendant’s guilty plea.  In affirming the appellate division, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, wrote:

Here, the claim to counsel is so deeply intertwined with the integrity of the process in Supreme Court that defendant’s guilty plea is no bar to appellate review. A claim that removal of counsel was part of the court’s disparate, unjustifiable treatment of defense counsel goes to the fundamental fairness of our system of justice. While the right to counsel of choice is qualified, and may cede, under certain circumstances, to concerns of the efficient administration of the criminal justice system, we have made clear that courts cannot arbitrarily interfere with the attorney-client relationship, and interference with that relationship for purpose of case management is not without limits, and is subject to scrutiny.  People v Griffin, 46. CtApp, 4-2-13

 

/ ,

Defendant’s Understanding Guilty Plea Would Result In Only a Year and a Half More in Prison Required Vacation of Plea

At the time defendant pled guilty to conspiracy, his 6-12 year sentence was to run concurrently with previously imposed 41/2 to 9 sentences (for class B felonies) and his understanding was that his minimum time in prison would be extended by only a year and a half.  Subsequently the B-felony convictions were reduced to three years under the Drug Law Reform Act.  The defendant then moved to vacate the conspiracy sentence and conviction but the motion was denied.  The Court of Appeals reversed and wrote:

Defendant’s plea to the conspiracy count was induced by the judge’s specific representation to him that he would thereby extend his minimum incarceratory term by a year and a half only. It simply cannot be said on this record that defendant, who was clearly working toward achieving the earliest release date possible, would have pleaded guilty absent this assurance. Generally, “when a guilty plea has been induced by an unfulfilled promise either the plea must be vacated or the promise honored, but that the choice rests in the discretion of the sentencing court” … .  People v Monroe, 41, CtApp 4-2-13

 

/ ,

Signing Checks Pursuant to a Power of Attorney Cannot Amount to Forgery 

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, affirmed the appellate division’s reversal of 40 “criminal possession of a forged instrument” convictions that were based upon the defendant’s [Ippolito’s]  signing checks using only the principal’s name without indicating he was signing pursuant to a power of attorney [POA]:

Here, the POA (until revoked) vested Ippolito with unlimited power to sign Katherine M. L.’s name on written instruments. As a result, the checks cannot have been forgeries … .[“[A] person does not ‘falsely make’ an instrument when he is authorized to execute it”]). Put another way, where the ostensible maker or drawer of a written instrument is a real person, a signature is not forged unless unauthorized (see Penal Law § 170.00 [4]). Since Ippolito was empowered to sign Katherine M. L.’s name at the times when he drew or endorsed the 40 checks at issue on this appeal, the People’s proof was legally insufficient to convict him of [criminal possession of a forged instrument]. People v Ippolito, 32, CtApp, 4-2-13

 

/ , ,

Opposition to Additur or Remittitur After First Trial Can Not Be Appealed After Second Trial

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals dealt with several issues in a multi-million dollar medical malpractice suit that had already gone through two trials.  One of the issues was whether opposition to additur or remittitur with respect to the verdict in an intitial trial must be raised on appeal before retrying the case.  In holding that the issue is not appealable after a second trial, the Court of Appeals wrote:

The Appellate Division regularly reviews, and sometimes accepts, arguments that an additur or remittitur granted by a trial court is either excessive or inadequate … . In no such case, as far as we are aware, has the appellant’s claim been held unpreserved for failure to specify a more reasonable increase or decrease in the damages, and imposing such a requirement would serve little purpose.

But a party that wants to challenge the amount of an additur or remittitur on appeal must do so before a new trial takes place. The chief benefit of the devices known as additur and remittitur is that, when they are accepted, they spare the parties and the court the burden and expense of a second trial. Deferring appellate review until after the second trial destroys that benefit. Such a deferral also gives the party opposing the additur or remittitur an unjustified tactical advantage: if successful on appeal, that party can choose whether to accept the new amount of the additur or remittitur, already knowing what the second jury has awarded.  *  *  *

We see no unfairness in requiring a party dissatisfied with the size of an additur or remittitur to obtain appellate review before any retrial. If there is not time for such review, and neither the trial court nor the appellate court will grant a stay, the party’s remedy is to reject the proffered stipulation and retry the case. Defendants here pursued that remedy. They are not entitled to another remedy because they are displeased with the result.  Oakes … v Patel, 51, CtApp, 4-2-13

 

/

Response to Flooding Caused by Storm Not “Routine Maintenance”

The First Department determined that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of the defendant in a Labor Law 240 (1) action.  Plaintiff was called to address flooding caused by severe weather and fell into an open manhole.  The motion court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance.  The First Department found that a manhole is a “structure” within the meaning of the statute and that there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff was engaged in “repair” or “routine maintenance:”

Whether a particular activity constitutes a “repair” or routine maintenance must be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the context of the work … . A factor to be taken into consideration is whether the work in question was occasioned by an isolated event as opposed to a recurring condition. * * * The record here demonstrates that the work performed by plaintiff at the time of his injury was far from routine.  Dos Santos v Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02140, 8914, 105861/08, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

/ ,

Internet Tax Held Constitutional

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined the Internet Tax (Tax Law 1101(b)(8)(vi) was constitutional on its face and did not violate either the Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause.  The plaintiffs in the action, Overstock.com and Amazon.com, sued the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.  The activities found to be legitimately taxable in New York were described by the Court as follows:

Amazon offers an “Associates Program” through which third parties agree to place links on their own websites that, when clicked, direct users to Amazon’s website. The Associates are compensated on a commission basis. They receive a percentage of the revenue from sales generated when a customer clicks on the Associate’s link and completes a purchase from the Amazon site. The operating agreement governing this arrangement states that the Associates are independent contractors and that there is no employment relationship between the parties. Thousands of entities enrolled in the Associates Program have provided a New York address in connection with their applications.

Plaintiff Overstock.com is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Utah. Overstock likewise sells its merchandise solely through the Internet and does not maintain any office, employees or property in New York. Similar to Amazon, Overstock had an “Affiliates” program through which third parties would place links for Overstock.com on their own websites. When a customer clicked on the link, he or she was immediately directed to Overstock.com, and if the customer completed a purchase, the Affiliate received a commission. According to the parties’ Master Agreement, the Affliates were independent contractors without the authority to obligate or bind Overstock.

Judge Smith dissented and would have found the statute unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.  Overstock.com, et al, v NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, et al, 33, CtApp 3-28-13

 

 

/ , , ,

Whether a Confidential Relationship Existed With Decedent Is a Question of Fact for the Jury; Application of Dead Man’s Statute Explained

In reversing the Surrogate’s Court verdict, the Third Department, in a decision by Justice Spain, determined that the existence of a confidential relationship with the decedent is a question of fact for the jury (Surrogate’s Court determined the existence of the relationship as a matter of law).  In addition, because the matter is to be retried, the Third Department included a useful discussion of how the Dead Man’s Statute (CPLR 4519) should be applied:

Under  the  doctrine of “‘constructive fraud,'” where  a  confidential relationship exists between  two parties to a transaction “‘such that they were dealing on unequal terms due to one party’s weakness, dependence or trust  justifiably reposed  upon  the  other  and  unfair advantage  is rendered  probable,'” the  burden  of proof  with  respect to allegations of undue influence will be shifted to the stronger party to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that no undue influence was used … In determining whether a confidential  relationship  exists,  “the  existence  of  a  family relationship does  not, per se, create a presumption  of undue influence; there must be evidence of other facts or circumstances showing  inequality  or  controlling influence” … ..The  existence of such a relationship will ordinarily be  a question of fact … . *  *  *

The [Dead Man’s] statute precludes an interested party from being “examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and  the deceased person” (CPLR 4519 …). Given that the “purpose of the rule is ‘to protect the estate of the deceased from claims of the living who, through their own perjury, could make factual assertions which the decedent could not refute in court’…, it   will not preclude any testimony elicited by the representative of the estate, nor does it preclude testimony of transactions between decedent and a non-interested third party …. Further, the statute’s protections with regard to a particular transaction may be waived where the representative “testifies in his [or her] own behalf concerning a personal transaction of his adversary with the deceased” or when he or she “elicits testimony from an interested party on the personal transaction in issue” …  .  Matter of Nealon, 513733, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

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