ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. CITIBANK, NA
| Decision Date | 19 June 2003 |
| Citation | 306 A.D.2d 158,763 N.Y.S.2d 539 |
| Parties | ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>CITIBANK, N.A., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff, the insurer/subrogee of one of defendant's depositors, was entitled to summary judgment here pursuant to UCC 4-401 (1), which holds defendant bank strictly liable for payment of checks not "properly payable," i.e., bearing forged signatures (Putnam Rolling Ladder Co. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 74 NY2d 340, 345 [1989]; Ernst & Co. v Chemical Bank, 209 AD2d 241, 243 [1994]). The record evidence that the signatures were forged is undisputed. Defendant, in opposition to summary judgment, relied on UCC 3-406, alleging that plaintiff's assignor's negligence substantially contributed to the forgery. This purported defense is unavailing since, even if true, the defendant bank utterly failed to show that there was no contributory negligence on its part and "that it exercised `reasonable commercial standards' in verifying signatures on the checks presented to it for payment" (Zambia Natl. Commercial Bank Ltd. v Fidelity Intl. Bank, 855 F Supp 1377, 1387 [1994]). Failure to demonstrate its observance of "reasonable commercial standards" in such circumstances "places liability squarely with the bank" (id. at 1388).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes Electronics Corp. v. Citibank
...is wholly inoperative and bank must recredit drawer's account, or be strictly liable]; Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Citibank, N.A. (N.Y.App.Div.2003) 306 A.D.2d 158, 763 N.Y.S.2d 539 [same].) Accordingly, this case presents no impediment to enforcement of the parties' choice of law 2. New Y......
-
Coney Island Payroll Servs., Inc. v. First Cent. Sav. Bank
...420 (2000); Getty Petroleum Corp. v. American Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 322, 3'27 (1997); Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Citibank, 306 A.D.2d 158, 159 (1st Dep't 2003); Robinson Motor Xpress, Inc. v. HSBC Bank, USA, 37 A.D.3d 117, 119 (2d Dep't 2006). See UCC §§ 3-417(1), 4-207......
-
Jag Orthopedics, P.C. v. AJC Advisory Corp.
...UCC 3–406 and UCC 4–406, however, are defenses that must be affirmatively pleaded by a defendant (see Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Citibank, 306 A.D.2d 158, 159 [1st Dept 2003] ; Five Towns Coll. v. Citibank, 108 A.D.2d 420, 426 [1st Dept 1985] ; Eldon, 2011 WL 1236141 * 6 ; Weafri Well Servs.,......
-
R.A. Contracting Co. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
...3–406; Mouradian v. Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan, 91 N.Y.2d 124, 131, 667 N.Y.S.2d 340, 689 N.E.2d 1385;Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Citibank, 306 A.D.2d 158, 159, 763 N.Y.S.2d 539). Since the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the papers submit......