Manas y Pineiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1976
• Citation: 52 A.D.2d 794,383 N.Y.S.2d 357
• Parties: Rosa Maria MANAS y PINEIRO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 357

383 N.Y.S.2d 357

52 A.D.2d 794

Rosa Maria MANAS y PINEIRO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May 18, 1976.

P. P. Kenny, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.

A. J. Connick, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Before STEVENS, P.J., and MARKEWICH, KUPFERMAN, BIRNS and CAPOZZOLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County entered August 1, 1975, affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In 1958, plaintiff-respondent, a Cuban national resident there, paid nearly a quarter million dollars to a branch maintained by defendant-appellant Bank in Cuba, in exchange for certificates of deposit, refundable to the depositor only upon 'submission of this document' a year later. Though the currency deposited was referred to as 'national currency' nothing was said about what kind of currency was to be refunded, pesos or other, nor was any place specified for redemption. Plaintiff departed Cuba with the certificates ahead of the coming to power of the Castro government, which trereafter expropriated the accounts of the local branch of defendant Bank and also forbade export of Cuban currency. Years after issuance of the certificates, plaintiff presented them here to defendant Bank and requested payment. It was refused, defendant claiming that acts of state by Cuba in confiscating the accounts of a Cuban citizen and in forbidding the export of Cuban currency had the effect of extinguishing the debt and that, in any event, the Cuban branch being completely independent of defendant Bank, presentment here did not involve refusal by the Cuban branch to pay.

A proceeding based upon instruments for the payment of money only, brought on by motion for summary judgment, resulted in denial of the motion, as well as of the cross-motion to dismiss. As observed at Special Term, there are issues of fact raised not alone by the omissions in the documents as to place of payment and the nature thereof but also as to plaintiff's status visa-vis the Cuban government when it committed the dictatorial acts, said to be in accordance with its laws, of claimed expropriation of the debt owed to plaintiff, as well as of the currency with which it might have been paid. The question of plaintiff's status alone is sufficient at this juncture to preclude decision as to whether the claimed seizures were permissible acts of a sovereign state upon which defendant appears to rely in rejection of plaintiff's claim. Cf. French v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, 23 N.Y.2d 46, 295 N.Y.S.2d 433, 242 N.E.2d 704. These issues alone are sufficient to defeat defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

All concur, except BIRNS and CAPOZZOLI, JJ., who dissent in the following memorandum by CAPOZZOLI, J.:

CAPOZZOLI, Justice (dissenting).

Even if we assume that the contention of the plaintiff is correct, viz.: that she had entered into an understanding with the Cuban branch of defendant bank that the certificates of deposit could be repaid in the United States, it would not authorize our Court to invalidate the subsequent seizure of the proceeds in the Cuban branch, by the Cuban Government. If, as plaintiff argues, the certificates could be repaid in the United States, surely they could also be repaid at the...