Bradford Trust Co. v. Citibank, N.A.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1983
• Citation: 458 N.E.2d 820,60 N.Y.2d 868,470 N.Y.S.2d 361
• Parties: , 458 N.E.2d 820 BRADFORD TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Respondent, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 361

470 N.Y.S.2d 361

60 N.Y.2d 868, 458 N.E.2d 820

BRADFORD TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v.CITIBANK, N.A., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 22, 1983.

[60 N.Y.2d 870] Christopher J. Collins and Louis J. Maione, New York City, for appellant.

Annette Wheeler and Joanna Shally, New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 90 A.D.2d 1004, 456 N.Y.S.2d 1017, should be affirmed, with costs.

Although there are circumstances under which the drawer of a negotiable instrument may have a cause of action against a depositary bank that has paid over a forged but effective indorsement, Special Term correctly determined that the factors urged by plaintiff as establishing that the depositary bank wrongfully paid the instrument are insufficient to invoke that rule of liability.The subject instrument was not paid in a manner inconsistent with any restrictive indorsement (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-205), nor was the instrument improperly or inadequately indorsed (Uniform Commercial Code, §§ 3-117,3-204).Finally, there is no requirement that a check payable to a fiduciary be deposited to a fiduciary account, and the fact that the instrument was not so deposited may not, without more, be relied upon as establishing a...