From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marino v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1998
250 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 19, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.)


The record contains no denial by the plaintiffs that Mr. Weiss was an authorized signatory on plaintiffs accounts. The claims against drawer Bank of New York for payment on forged drawer signatures were properly dismissed for failure to comply with the notification requirement set forth in the banks rules and regulations ( see, Retail Shoe Health Commn. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 160 A.D.2d 47, "50).

The claims against depositary Citibank for payment on forged indorsements were also properly dismissed ( see, Prudential-Bache Sec. v. Citibank, 73 N.Y.2d 263, 272). We note that plaintiffs have abandoned their argument, raised before the motion court, that the fictitious payee rule of UCC 3-405(1)(b) is inapplicable under the circumstances.

We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Marino v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1998
250 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Marino v. Bank of New York

Case Details

Full title:PETER MARINO, LTD., et al., Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK et al.…

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

Date published: May 19, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 865

Citing Cases

Wells v. Bank of NY Co.

Contrary to plaintiff's arguments, it has been held that compliance with notification requirements set forth…

Samuel L. Hagan II, P.C. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank

The Court further noted that it was "not called upon to decide whether the time limitations of that paragraph…