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.
Sharif M. AMANAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK LEUMI TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane J.), entered on or about April 26, 1996, which, in an action for money had and received, inter alia, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The operative allegations of the complaint are that defendant, a bank, received the proceeds of checks that plaintiff made payable to defendant, that plaintiff never duly authorized defendant to make payment of the funds received to any party whatsoever, and that defendant has refused plaintiff's demand to return such funds received by defendant but “belonging” to plaintiff. These allegations were correctly held insufficient to state a cause of action for money had and received in that they failed to give notice of why money represented by checks made payable to defendant rightfully belongs to plaintiff (see, Stephans v. Apostol, 17 A.D.2d 982, 983, 234 N.Y.S.2d 337, citing, inter alia, Belkor Knitwear Co. v. Posner, 78 N.Y.S.2d 618, 620). The relevance of the allegation that plaintiff did not authorize disbursement of the money is not apparent absent an allegation that plaintiff maintained an account with defendant or is otherwise entitled to the money. Since plaintiff asserts that he has already served an amended complaint and does not request leave to do so, we see no reason to modify to grant such leave. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 02, 1997
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)