From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bloom v. Bank for Savings

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 2, 1959
19 Misc. 2d 784 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)

Opinion

October 2, 1959

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, MURRAY H. PEARLMAN, J.

Samuel Gottesman and Gerald M. Smith for appellant.

Henry J. Krissoff and Bernard Meyerson for respondent.


In our view of the evidence, there was no showing that the defendant failed to use the due care and diligence required of it in paying out the moneys in suit. ( Noah v. Bank for Sav., 171 App. Div. 191; Geitelsohn v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 17 Misc. 574; Appleby v. Erie County Sav. Bank, 62 N.Y. 12; Kelley v. Buffalo Sav. Bank, 180 N.Y. 171; Campbell v. Schenectady Sav. Bank, 114 App. Div. 337.) The proper party plaintiff in this action was Shirley Bloom, the depositor ( Matter of Totten, 179 N.Y. 112). Her motion to amend the title of the action to substitute the infant beneficiary of the account as the plaintiff in her stead should have been denied. The title of the action is deemed amended accordingly. (Cf. Grippo v. Di Vito, 7 A.D.2d 913.)

Appeal from "decision" dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision ( Both v. Hyatt, 7 A.D.2d 992). The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to the defendant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Concur — PETTE, HART and BROWN, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Bloom v. Bank for Savings

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 2, 1959
19 Misc. 2d 784 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)
Case details for

Bloom v. Bank for Savings

Case Details

Full title:SHIRLEY BLOOM, as Guardian ad Litem of STUART BLOOM, an Infant…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Oct 2, 1959

Citations

19 Misc. 2d 784 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)
193 N.Y.S.2d 576