From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Central Federal Savings, FSB v. Banchik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 1991
176 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

October 3, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.).


Plaintiff Central Federal established its entitlement to a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendant Ruth Banchik from transferring any funds deposited by her with defendants National Westminster Bank and Dime Savings Bank of New York, during the pendency of the underlying action by plaintiff, seeking to impress a trust upon the aforementioned funds (Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496).

Specifically, the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits was established by, inter alia, the July 7, 1988, letter agreement between the parties requiring $200,000 as substitute collateral for the mortgage on certain real property owned by defendant Banchik's husband, and by the $200,000 bank check deposited with plaintiff Central Federal on the same date.

Defendant Banchik's failure to timely raise an objection to the alleged improper venue constituted a waiver of that relief as a matter of right (Callanan Indus. v. Sovereign Constr. Co., 44 A.D.2d 292).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Central Federal Savings, FSB v. Banchik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 1991
176 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Central Federal Savings, FSB v. Banchik

Case Details

Full title:CENTRAL FEDERAL SAVINGS, FSB, Respondent, v. RUTH BANCHIK, Appellant, et…

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

Date published: Oct 3, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
574 N.Y.S.2d 562

Citing Cases

Wager v. Pelham Union Free Sch. Dist.

What distinguishes this case, however, is the NYCHHC's explicit waiver of its statutory right to venue in…

Shoshone First Bank v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co.

The insurer is obligated to afford a defense as long as the alleged claim rationally falls within the policy…