Uniform Commercial Code – Page 7 – New York Appellate Digest

No Actionable Violations by Bank Re: Overdraft Charges/Overdraft Charges Are Not Interest

The First Department determined plaintiff had not stated causes of action against a bank based in part upon alleged violations of statements in a checking-account brochure issued by the bank. The complaint challenged the method used by the bank to impose overdraft charges on plaintiff’s checking account, alleging breach of contract, violations of General Business Law 349 and usury. With respect to the General Business Law and usuary causes of action, the court wrote:

To state a claim under General Business Law § 349, “a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has engaged in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof” … . A ” deceptive act or practice'” is defined as “a representation or omission likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'” … * * * Plaintiff makes no claim that the applicability of his overdraft protection was not disclosed to him. * * *

The third cause of action, alleging usury, was properly dismissed because, as found by the motion court, overdraft charges are not interest. “If an instrument provides that the creditor will receive additional payment in the event of a contingency beyond the borrower’s control, the contingent payment constitutes interest within the meaning of the usury statutes” … . Even assuming a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties, the contingency of an account overdraft would have been within plaintiff’s control … . Feld v Apple Bank for Sav, 2014 NY Slip Op 02662, 1st Dept 4-17-14

April 17, 2014

Banking Law, Lien Law, Trusts and Estates, Uniform Commercial Code

Bank Was Not a Statutory Lien Law Trustee; Question of Fact Whether Bank Was Aware Funds Were Diverted Lien Law Trust Funds

Plaintiff, a subcontractor in an environmental remediation project run by defendant AAA Environmental, sued on behalf of similarly situated subcontractors alleging that the arrangement AAA had with First Niagara Bank violated Lien Law article 3-A. By that arrangement, each night funds from AAA’s operational account would be transferred to AAA’s line of credit account to reduce the balance. If the amount to be charged to AAA’s operational account exceeded the funds available, funds would be automatically transferred from the line of credit account to the operational account. Supreme Court determined the arrangement violated the Lien Law finding that Niagara Bank had notice the funds were diverted Lien Law trust funds and the bank was not a holder in due course. The Fourth Department disagreed and held Niagara Bank is not a Lien Law statutory trustee and there was a question of fact whether Niagara Bank had notice it was receiving diverted Lien Law trust funds:

First Niagara is not a Lien Law statutory trustee under the facts of this case and thus cannot be held liable for a violation of the Lien Law on that basis. “A lender is not a statutory trustee because ‘[n]o one other than an owner, contractor, or subcontractor is designated as a prospective trustee in article 3-A [of the Lien Law]’ ” … . Although the Court of Appeals has held that a lender may become a statutory trustee when a contractor assigns its right of payment from the owner to the lender as security for a loan and the owner makes payments directly to the lender until the contractor’s debt is repaid …, First Niagara received no such assignment here.

…[T]he court erred in determining as a matter of law that it had actual notice that it was receiving diverted Lien Law trust funds, and thus could be held liable under Lien Law § 72 (1). …

…[T]he court erred in applying a constructive notice standard in determining that First Niagara was not a holder in due course, and thus could be liable under Lien Law § 72 (1). As the Court of Appeals noted in I-T-E Imperial Corp.—Empire Div. v Bankers Trust Co. (51 NY2d 811), “[w]ith the adoption . . . of the Uniform Commercial Code, the concept of notice under [UCC] article 3 (and by analogy under article 4 as well . . . ) has, as we have held in Chemical Bank of Rochester v Haskell (51 NY2d 85), been changed from an objective to a subjective standard, and that change must be deemed to have amended the Lien Law as well” (id. at 813-814…).

Furthermore, “[t]he purpose of UCC 3-304 (7)—unique to New York and Virginia—[is] to require that questions of notice . . . be determined by a subjective test of actual knowledge rather than an objective test which might involve constructive knowledge” … . Price Trucking Corp… v AAA Environmental Inc…m 1088, 4th Dept 11-8-13

November 8, 2013

Contract Law, Uniform Commercial Code

Remedies Re: Purchase and Sale of Furniture Controlled by UCC

In affirming the grant of summary judgment on a breach of contract cause of action regarding the purchase of furniture accepted by the defendant, the Third Department explained the relevant law under the UCC:

Because the transaction predominantly involved the sale of goods, the parties’ rights and remedies are governed by UCC article 2 … . The parties’ oral contract is enforceable because both parties acknowledge the existence of that contract (see UCC 2-201 [3] [b]). The UCC provides that acceptance of goods takes place, among other ways, when the buyer fails to reject them after having a reasonable opportunity to inspect them (see UCC 2-606 [1] [b]…). A buyer must pay for accepted goods at the contract rate (see UCC 2-607 [1]), but may eliminate or diminish the amount claimed by a seller by asserting a valid counterclaim for breach of the sales agreement … . Where a seller has allegedly breached the contract, a buyer who has accepted the goods “must within a reasonable time after he [or she] discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy” (UCC 2-607 [3] [a]…).

Plaintiff met its burden on the summary judgment motion by submitting proof that it delivered and installed the furniture, defendant accepted the furniture by retaining it without attempting to return it, and defendant only paid the $13,250 down payment on the $44,330.21 contract… . Accent Commercial Furniture Inc v P. Schneider & Associates, PLLC, 515940, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

October 31, 2013

Civil Procedure, Fraud, Uniform Commercial Code

UCC Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applied to Breach of Warranty Cause of Action

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that a guarantee which stated “if any defects in manufacturing, materials or workmanship occurred within 10 years the product would be repaired, replaced or purchase price refunded” was not a warranty which extended to future performance within the meaning of UCC 2-725[2]. The four-year UCC statute of limitations therefore applied to the warranty cause of action. In addition, the Second Department affirmed the dismissal of the “fraudulent concealment” cause of action. The Court’s discussion of the law concerning those two issues follows:

A cause of action alleging breach of warranty is governed by a four-year statute of limitations (see UCC 2-725[1]…). Generally, a breach of warranty action accrues “when tender of delivery is made” (UCC 2-725[2];…). As an exception to this general rule, the UCC provides that “where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance,” then “the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered” (UCC 2-725[2];…). “A warranty of future performance is one that guarantees that the product will work for a specified period of time”… . However, “[w]arranties to repair or replace [a] product in the event that it fails to perform, without any promise of performance, do not constitute warranties of future performance” … . * * *

In pleading a cause of action to recover damages for fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (CPLR 3016[b];…) A cause of action sounding in fraud must allege that the defendant knowingly misrepresented or concealed a material fact for the purpose of inducing another party to rely upon it, and that the other party justifiably relied upon such misrepresentation or concealment to his or her own detriment…. “A cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent concealment requires, in addition to allegations of scienter, reliance, and damages, an allegation that the defendant had a duty to disclose material information and that it failed to do so”… Schwatka v Super Millwork, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03470, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

May 15, 2013

Contract Law, Uniform Commercial Code

Anticipatory Repudiation Cause of Action Stated;Four-Year UCC Statute of Limitations Applied

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department determined that the plaintiff had pled a valid “anticipatory repudiation” cause of action and that the four-year UCC statute of limitations applied. The case concerned the return (for a refund) of drugs when the expiration date is close or has passed. The plaintiff brought the action when it learned the refund would not be offered in full. Regarding the anticipatory repudiation and statute of limitations issues, Justice Leventhal wrote:

Here, the complaint alleges that, when the defendants refused to accept the plaintiff’s attempt to return the unsold merchandise, the defendants anticipatorily repudiated their respective return policies by unambiguously stating that they would not accept the returns. The complaint asserts that the defendants’ anticipatory repudiation occurred before the plaintiff tendered the unsold merchandise to the defendants and before the plaintiff attempted to return the merchandise to the manufacturer in accordance with standard industry practice. When a party repudiates a contract prior to the time designated for performance and before all of the consideration has been fulfilled, the nonrepudiating party can seek to recover damages …. * * *

The general rule applicable to actions to recover damages for breach of contract is that a six-year statute of limitations begins to run when a contract is breached or when one party fails to perform a contractual obligation …. However, UCC 2-725(1) provides that “[a]n action for breach of any contract for sale [of goods] must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued” (see CPLR 203[a]). QK Healthcare, Inc v InSource, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03312, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

May 8, 2013

Banking Law, Negligence, Uniform Commercial Code

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

April 3, 2013