LCR TECHNOLOGIES INC v. HSBC BANK USA (2007)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an implied duty of confidentiality, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), entered October 31, 2005, as granted the motion of the defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

 While some courts have suggested that there may exist a duty in New York that a bank keep a customer's banking transactions confidential (see Young v. United States Dept. of Justice, 882 F.2d 633, 643-644, cert. denied 493 U.S. 1072, 110 S.Ct. 1116, 107 L.Ed.2d 1023;  Aaron Ferer & Sons v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 731 F.2d 112, 123;  Sharma v. Skaarup Ship Mgt. Corp., 699 F.Supp. 440, 449-450, affd. 916 F.2d 820, cert. denied 499 U.S. 907, 111 S.Ct. 1109, 113 L.Ed.2d 218;  Boccardo v. Citibank, 152 Misc.2d 1012, 1014-1015, 579 N.Y.S.2d 836;  Graney Dev. Corp. v. Taksen, 92 Misc.2d 764, 766-769, 400 N.Y.S.2d 717, affd. 66 A.D.2d 1008, 411 N.Y.S.2d 756), a bank's compliance with a judicially authorized subpoena immunizes it from liability for any required disclosures (see Young v. United States Dept. of Justice, supra at 644;  Matter of Grand Jury Applications, 142 Misc.2d 241, 248, 536 N.Y.S.2d 939;  Graney Dev. Corp. v. Taksen, supra at 767-768, 400 N.Y.S.2d 717;  see also Suburban Trust Co. v. Waller, 44 Md.App. 335, 344, 408 A.2d 758).   Consequently, the defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A., did not breach any duty of confidentiality to the plaintiffs when it disclosed the plaintiffs' bank records in response to a judicially authorized subpoena.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.