From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Catalano v. Marine Midland Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2003
303 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

holding plaintiffs waived their right to bring action against the defendant bank by failing to notify the bank of the unauthorized withdrawals within 14 days after the account statements were made available to them, as required by the deposit account agreement

Summary of this case from Overby v. Chase Manhattan Bank J.P. Morgan Chase

Opinion

2002-02919

Argued February 25, 2003.

March 24, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for the payment of unauthorized withdrawals, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated February 14, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Marine Midland Bank and granted the cross motion of that defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Brody, O'Connor O'Connor, Northport, N.Y. (Patricia A. O'Connor, Thomas M. O'Connor, and Scott A. Brody of counsel), for appellants.

Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine Huber, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (Michael J. Berchou and Michael B. Powers of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs waived their right to bring this action against the defendant Marine Midland Bank (hereinafter the Bank) by failing to notify the Bank of the unauthorized withdrawals within 14 days after the account statements itemizing these transactions were made available to them, as required by the deposit account agreement (see Marino, Ltd. v. Bank of N.Y., 250 A.D.2d 485; Radon Constr. Corp. v. Colwell, 248 A.D.2d 366; Qassemzadeh v. IBM Poughkeepsie Employees Fed. Credit Union, 167 A.D.2d 378; Retail Shoe Health Commn. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 160 A.D.2d 47). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the Bank.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Catalano v. Marine Midland Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2003
303 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

holding plaintiffs waived their right to bring action against the defendant bank by failing to notify the bank of the unauthorized withdrawals within 14 days after the account statements were made available to them, as required by the deposit account agreement

Summary of this case from Overby v. Chase Manhattan Bank J.P. Morgan Chase
Case details for

Catalano v. Marine Midland Bank

Case Details

Full title:PETER CATALANO, ET AL., appellants, v. MARINE MIDLAND BANK, respondent, ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 24, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 770

Citing Cases

Oppedisano v. D'Agostino

Condition precedent Applying the above-noted principles to the facts at hand, plaintiffs in the first…

Overby v. Chase Manhattan Bank J.P. Morgan Chase

Because of plaintiff's failure to notify Chase within the required time period, he is now barred from…