Dietrich v. Chemical Bank

Decision Date21 September 1981
PartiesJulia Ann DIETRICH, Plaintiff, v. CHEMICAL BANK, Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

Meyers, Tersigni, Kaufman, Debrot, Feldman & Gray, New York City, for plaintiff; Anthony L. Tersigni, New York City, of counsel.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for defendant; Michael C. Spencer, New York City, of counsel.

MARTIN B. STECHER, Justice:

Defendant Chemical Bank moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint on the ground that documentary evidence, read in conjunction with the controlling statutes, provides a complete defense to the action. The motion is granted.

Plaintiff has commenced a class action, apparently uncertified as yet, alleging that certain service charges customarily imposed by Defendant are excessive and their imposition constitutes a breach of the contract between Chemical and its depositors. The service charges involved are $4.00 fee imposed when the depositor writes a check resulting in an overdraft and a fee of $1.25 when an item deposited in a customer's account is dishonored and returned. Plaintiff alleges that these charges are "grossly disproportionate to the actual costs, if any, incurred by Chemical."

Chemical's response is that the charges are permitted by statute, i.e., certain banking regulations; that since the depositor assents to the imposition of the charges when he or she opens an account, the levy of such charges cannot constitute a breach of contract; and furthermore, since the charges are specifically authorized by law, they cannot per se be unconscionable and violative of public policy.

In support of its position, Chemical has supplied the Court with a photostat of the signature card Plaintiff filled out when she opened the account, a copy of the Rules and Regulations in effect during the period of the banking relationship, and a copy of the two service fee schedules in effect during the period when Ms. Dietrich maintained her account with Defendant.

The following legend appears above the depositor's signature on the signature card executed when Ms. Dietrich opened her account "I acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Rules and Regulations applicable to this checking/savings account and agree to be bound by these Rules and Regulations."

Two different sets of Rules and Regulations were in effect during Plaintiff's banking relationship with Chemical. Both sets of Rules incorporate by reference a fee schedule which is available for inspection upon request. These fees are set pursuant to Section 108(8) of the Banking Law and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff has conceded that these laws are part of the contract between the depositor and the bank. (Para. 25 of the Amended Complaint).

The fees alluded to previously are the maximum fees allowed by the general regulations of the Banking Board. These regulations permit a banking institution to charge a lesser amount "as an accommodation to its customers", but do not mandate that it do so. Plaintiff argues that these charges, if they are out of proportion to what it costs Chemical to process a "bounced" check, amount to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Kiley v. First Nat. Bank of Maryland, 137
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1994
    ...and Regulations and, in executing the signature cards, appellants accepted those Rules and Regulations. Dietrich v. Chem. Bank, 115 Misc.2d 713, 454 N.Y.S.2d 490, 491 (Sup.Ct.1981), aff'd, 92 A.D.2d 786, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1016 (1983) (plaintiff may not claim she did not receive Bank's rules and ......
  • American Dredging Co. v. Plaza Petroleum Inc., 90 CV 353 (SJ).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 16 Marzo 1992
    ...of separate writings or documents if the contract makes it clear that it is to be read with other writings. Dietrich v. Chemical Bank, 115 Misc.2d 713, 454 N.Y.S.2d 490 (1981); see also, Texaco Export, Inc. v. Overseas Tankship Corp., 477 F.Supp. 289 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 614 F.2d 1291 (2d Cir......
  • AFL Falck, SpA v. EA Karay Co., Inc., 85 Civ. 1998 (RWS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 10 Junio 1986
    ...See Madawick Contracting Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 307 N.Y. 111, 118, 120 N.E.2d 520 (1954); Dietrich v. Chemical Bank, 115 Misc.2d 713, 454 N.Y.S.2d 490, 491 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.1981), aff'd, 92 A.D.2d 786, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1016 (1st Dep't.1983); see generally Corbin on Contracts, § 512. The ......
  • Marrow v. Bank of Am., N.A.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 25 Junio 2021
    ...and Regulations and, in executing the signature cards, appellants accepted those Rules and Regulations. Dietrich v. Chem. Bank, 115 Misc.2d 713, 454 N.Y.S.2d 490, 491 (Sup.Ct. 1981), aff'd, 92 A.D.2d 786, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1016 (1983)(plaintiff may not claim she did not receive Bank's rules and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT