Sav. Banks Trust Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of New York, & Am. Sav. Bank, 738 F.2d 573 (2d Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Sav. Banks Trust Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of New York, & Am. Sav. Bank, 738 F.2d 573 (2d Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: ARTISTIC TILE, INC. v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (njd, 2025-08-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ARTISTIC TILE, INC. v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
D.N.J. · 2025 · confidence medium
(Proposed TAC ¶¶ 50-51.) Plaintiff alleges that “since May of 2021 Chase was aware of extensive suspicious activity involving the Adami account” yet “Chase turned a blind eye, left the account open, and did nothing to resolve the ongoing suspicious activity.” (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff alleges that “[n]either the deposit slips nor the fraudulent checks bear any indication that approval was sought or obtained, or if it was, the supervisor or a manger 4 Plaintiff’s citation to Savings Bank Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 738 F.2d 573, 574 (2d Cir. 1984) is unpersuasive a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Reserve Bank v. Robert R. Thomas
11th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 590 F. Supp. 486 , 489 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (same); Cosentino, 579 F. Supp. at 1262-63 (rejecting jurisdictional challenge based on argument that state statutory claim was not a “suit” and stressing that section 632 “applies to ‘all suits of a civil nature’ to which a Federal Reserve Bank is a party”); Savings Bank Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 577 F. Supp. 964, 965 (S.D.N.Y.) (remarking that “[t]his is a civil action in which a Federal Reserve Bank is a party and therefore jurisdiction is conferred on the district court”…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta v. Thomas
11th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 590 F.Supp. 486 , 489 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (same); Cosentino, 579 F.Supp. at 1262-63 (rejecting jurisdictional challenge based on argument that state statutory claim was not a “suit” and stressing that section 632 “applies to ‘all suits of a civil nature’ to which a Federal Reserve Bank is a party”); Savings Banks Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 577 F.Supp. 964, 965 (S.D.N.Y.) (remarking that “[t]his is a civil action in which a Federal Reserve Bank is a party and therefore jurisdiction is conferred on the district court” b…
discussed Cited "see" Kathleen Carr v. Marietta Corporation
2d Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Savings Banks Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of N.Y., 738 F.2d 573, 574 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam) (holding that good faith does not exist if party has “knowledge and disregard of suspicious circumstances”); In re Legel Braswell Gov’t Secur.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Joint Venture Asset Acquisition v. Zellner
S.D.N.Y. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento, supra, at 1119; see also Savings Banks Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank, 738 F.2d 573, 574 (2d Cir.1984) (“knowledge and disregard of suspicious circumstances are sufficient to vitiate an assertion of good faith where negotiable instruments are concerned”); First City Federal Sav.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SAVINGS BANKS TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee, and American Savings Bank, Defendant
1355, Docket 84-7129.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jun 27, 1984.
738 F.2d 573
Peter J. Mastaglio, Garden City, N.Y. (Terry D. Weissman, Cullen & Dykman), Garden City, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant., Joseph P. Dailey, New York City (Joseph J. Tesoriero, Breed, Abbott & Morgan), New York City, for defendant-appellee.
Oakes, Winter, Mishler.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The present case arose out of the theft of a signed but otherwise incomplete teller’s check drawn on an account maintained by Franklin Savings Bank with the plaintiff, Savings Banks Trust Company (“Savings”). Savings received a written stop payment order with respect to the check in question from Franklin. Persons not involved in the present litigation completed the check and proceeded to deposit it in a North Carolina bank. The check came into possession of the defendant Federal Reserve Bank of New York through ordinary collection channels and was presented to Savings for payment. Savings failed to[*574] dishonor the check or to apprise the defendant of an intention to dishonor within the time specified by the Thrift Institution Collection Arrangement and New York Uniform Commercial Code Section 4-212 (McKinney 1964). Defendant thereupon debited Savings’ account in the amount of the check and Savings brought the present action to recover the amount in question.

Savings’ action against the Federal Reserve Bank is based on a claim that it breached the presenter’s warranty of no material alterations in the check in question as provided by New York Uniform Commercial Code § 4-207(l)(c) (McKinney 1964). However, Section 4-207 accords such a warranty only to a “payor bank ... who in good faith pays or accepts the item.”

Savings argues that the requisite “good faith” exists even when a party has sound reason to be suspicious so long as it does not have actual guilty knowledge. However, knowledge and disregard of suspicious circumstances are sufficient to vitiate an assertion of good faith where negotiable instruments are concerned. In Re Legel Braswell Government Securities Corp., 695 F.2d 506 (11th Cir.1983); Otten v. Marasco, 235 F.Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y.1964), aff'd 353 F.2d 563 (2d Cir.1965). See also H. Bailey, Brady on Bank Checks § 8.5 (1984 Cum.Supp. No. 1). Since receipt of the stop order by Savings imparted knowledge of suspicious circumstances sufficient to bar an action under Section 4-207, we affirm.