Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 14, 2002, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against defendant Citibank, N.A. in the amount of $157,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $157,000 plus 9% interest from May 8, 2000.
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 N.Y.2d 340, 345, 547 N.Y.S.2d 611, 546 N.E.2d 904; Ernst & Co. v. Chemical Bank, 209 A.D.2d 241, 243, 618 N.Y.S.2d 705). 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. Commercl. Bank Ltd. v. Fidelity Intl. Bank, 855 F.Supp. 1377, 1387). 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.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 19, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)