Summary
In Shapiro, the court found that no duty of inquiry existed and, even if the attorney violated a disciplinary rule, that alone will not "giv[e] rise to a cause of action that would otherwise not exist at law."
Summary of this case from Webster v. Total Identity Corp.Opinion
October 25, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).
The IAS Court correctly held that defendant could not be held liable as an escrow agent, it being undisputed that the purported agreement between plaintiff Carole Shapiro and defendant's client, Tolk, was never communicated to defendant before it disbursed the money given to it by Tolk, and to Tolk by plaintiffs, in accordance with Tolk's instructions (see, 55 N.Y. Jur 2d, Escrows, § 19). That the check plaintiffs gave Tolk was made payable to defendant's escrow account did not transform defendant into an escrow agent with a fiduciary duty to inquire of plaintiffs as to any conditions attached to the payment of the check (see, Farago v. Burke, 262 N.Y. 229, 233).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.