General Apparel Sales Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 70 Civ. 1410.
Decision Date | 23 October 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 70 Civ. 1410.,70 Civ. 1410. |
Citation | 321 F. Supp. 891 |
Parties | GENERAL APPAREL SALES CORP., Plaintiff, v. The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N. A., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Friend & Reiskind, New York City, for plaintiff; Edwin M. Reiskind, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Matthew F. Donohue, New York City, for defendant; Joseph V. Hamilton, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
In this suit by a North Carolina corporation against a national banking association which has its principal office in the Southern District of New York, the plaintiff moves for summary judgment. The suit relates to two checks in the total amount of $16,729.75 which defendant received for the account of plaintiff and the proceeds of which defendant disbursed from that account. Plaintiff claims that, as a matter of law, defendant had authority neither to receive and collect the checks nor to permit the proceeds to be withdrawn.
The material facts are not in dispute1 and may be described as follows: For some time prior to September 17, 1969, plaintiff maintained a checking account with defendant at its office at 2 Park Avenue, New York City. On that day one of plaintiff's officers telephoned Daniel McGlynn, an Assistant Treasurer of defendant, and requested that plaintiff's bank account be closed forthwith and that all funds in the account be forwarded to plaintiff's credit and account with the North State Bank of Burlington, North Carolina. McGlynn advised Maurice Koury, Chairman of plaintiff's Board of Directors, to put the request in writing, which Koury did, sending a letter of instructions on September 17, 1969, by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the defendant to the attention of McGlynn. The letter, received by defendant on September 18, reads as follows:
On September 26, 1969, the defendant marked the plaintiff's checking account closed, and on September 30 mailed to the plaintiff a final statement (for the period August 29 through September 26) showing a zero balance in the account.
In any event, the disposition of the case does not depend on whether Wilson, the former President of plaintiff, who had been authorized to draw on this account, did in fact receive the proceeds, but rather, on the fact that the proceeds were, without plaintiff's authority, paid out, in violation of the instructions of plaintiff as set forth in its letter of September 17, 1969, to some person other than the plaintiff or a person to whom payment was authorized by plaintiff. On the basis of these facts, the complaint alleges that defendant is liable for permitting unauthorized persons to convert the proceeds of the checks and for its negligence in doing so. The answer alleges that the defendant was authorized to do what it did, that the plaintiff was negligent, and that the plaintiff is estopped from bringing the suit.
This diversity case is governed by New York law. Article 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code of New York appears to control. Article 4-103 reads in relevant part:
The undisputed facts here clearly establish that defendant failed to meet its statutory obligations to use ordinary care when, contrary to the unqualified written instructions of plaintiff, it (1) received and deposited the checks in the closed account of plaintiff and (2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southern Elec. Supply Co. v. Raleigh County Nat. Bank.
...Co., 639 S.W.2d 169 (Mo.App.1982); Taylor v. Equitable Trust Co., 269 Md. 149, 304 A.2d 838 (1973); General Apparel Sales Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 321 F.Supp. 891 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Reliance Insurance Co. v. North Carolina National Bank, 39instructions of a depositor and unilaterally dec......
-
Bank of Southern Maryland v. Robertson's Crab House, Inc.
...are not equally applicable to a wrongful disbursement of funds belonging to a depositor. See General Apparel Sales Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, NA, 321 F.Supp. 891 (S.D.N.Y.1970), where recovery was allowed when the bank accepted deposits of General Apparel's funds after the account had b......
-
Taylor v. Equitable Trust Co.
...are not equally applicable to a wrongful disbursement of funds belonging to a depositor. See General Apparel Sales Corp v. Chase Manhattan Bank, NA, 321 F.Supp. 891 (S.D.N.Y.1970), where recovery was allowed when the bank accepted deposits of General Apparel's funds after the account had be......
-
Menicocci v. Archer Nat. Bank of Chicago
...accounts. United Milk Products Co. v. Mich. Ave. Nat'l Bk. of Chgo. (1976), 7 Cir., 401 F.2d 14; General Apparel Sales Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bk. (1970), D.C., 321 F.Supp. 891. In the present case, all savings accounts and subsequent withdrawals were accepted subject to defendant's by-law......