At page 396 Dismissing negligence claim for bank duty to creditors13 citing cases“to hold that banks owe a duty to their depositors' creditors to monitor the depositors' financial activities so as to assure the creditors' collection of the depositors' debts would be to unreasonably expand banks' orbit of duty.”
- Lerner v. Fleet Bank, 459 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006).published ([T]o hold that banks owe a duty to their depositors' creditors to monitor the depositors' financial activities so as to assure the creditors' collection of the depositors' debts would be to unreasonably expand banks' o…)
- Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 459 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006).published ([T]o hold that banks owe a duty to their depositors’ creditors to monitor the depositors’ financial activities so as to assure the creditors’ collection of the depositors’ debts would be to unreasonably expand banks’ o…)
- Surrey, No. 1:25-cv-03263 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2025).(dismissing negligence claim asserting that bank had a duty to monitor depositor's activities on behalf of creditors on the basis that such liability would “unreasonably expand banks’ orbit of duty.)
- XPO Enter. Serv. Inc v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:23-cv-07518 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2025).(concluding that bank was not liable for negligence to customer’s creditors and observing that “to hold that banks owe a duty to . . . assure the creditors’ collection of the depositors’ debts would be to unreasonably ex…)
- Fang Wang v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 51129(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublished Credit Corp v North Fork Bank , 246 AD2d 395, 396 [1st Dept 1998].) Nor does TDA's obligation to comply with the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) mean that TDA owed her a duty as a non-customer. ( See Wendt v Be…
- Abhyankar v. JPMorgan Chase & Co, No. 1:18-cv-09411 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020).(dismissing negligence claim asserting that bank had a duty to monitor depositor’s activities on behalf of creditors on the basis that such liability would “unreasonably expand banks’ orbit of duty.)
- Lesser v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 1:18-cv-09922 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2020).Credit Corp. v. N. Fork Bank, 668 N.Y.S.2d 18, 19 (1st Dep’t 1998); see also, e.g., Lerner, 459 F.3d at 286-87 (“With billions of banking transactions occurring in New York alone, this would be the equivalent of making New York banks liabl…
- Elmaliach v. Bank of China Ltd., 110 A.D.3d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013).published Credit Corp. v North Fork Bank, 246 AD2d 395, 396 [1st Dept 1998]).
- Winkler v. Battery Trading, Inc., 89 A.D.3d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).publishedCredit Corp. v North Fork Bank, 246 AD2d 395, 396 [1998]; cf. Baron v Galasso, 83 AD3d 626 [2011]; Norwest Mtge. v Dime Sav.
- Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 811 F. Supp. 2d 841 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).published([T]o hold that banks owe a duty to their depositors’ creditors to monitor the depositors’ financial activities so as to assure the creditors’ collection of the depositors' debts would be to unreasonably expand banks' o…)
Show 1 more citing case
- Chaney v. Dreyfus Serv. Corp., 595 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2010).published (stating that requiring a bank to monitor its customers’ accounts for the benefit of its customers’ creditors would “unreasonably expand banks’ orbit of duty)
v.
North Fork Bank
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 16, 1997, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for[*396] review a prior order which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.
Plaintiff factor’s cause of action for conversion against defendant bank was properly dismissed, it being clear that under the terms of both the Loan Security Agreement between plaintiff and its borrower and the Blocked Account Agreement between plaintiff, defendant and the borrower, the borrower, not defendant, was left with dominion and control over its other deposits with defendant. Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence against defendant was properly dismissed since to hold that banks owe a duty to their depositors’ creditors to monitor the depositors’ financial activities so as to assure the creditors’ collection of the depositors’ debts would be to unreasonably expand banks’ orbit of duty. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions, including that there is a need for further disclosure, and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.