Cluster 1494371

In an analogous case, a federal district judge concluded that an account-debtor's allegation that a bank's transactions involved fraud generated "a question of fact which this court cannot decide on a motion for summary judgment." Durante Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat'l Bank, 571 F. Supp. 489, 495 (D.C.N.Y. 1983) (citing cases for support).

Guerrero v. Katzen, 571 F.Supp. 714, 719-20 (D.C.D.C.1983); Durante Bros, and Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat’l Bank, 571 F.Supp. 489, 495 (E.D.N.Y.1983); Austin v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 570 F.Supp. 667, 669 (W.D.Mich.1983); Ralston v. Capper, 569 F.Supp. 1575, 1578-79 (E.D.Mich.1983); Mauriber v. Shear-son/American Express, Inc., 567 F.Supp. 1231, 1239-40 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Bankers Trust Co. v. Feldesman, 566 F.Supp. 1235, 1239-40 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Eisenberg v. Gag-n…

In the civil context, the cases include Cenco v. Seidman & Seidman, 686 F.2d 449 , 457 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 177 , 74 L.Ed.2d 145 (1982); Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1063-64 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 527 , 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983); In Re Action Industries Tender Offer, 572 F.Supp. 846, 850-51 (E.D.Va.1983); In Re Longhorn Securities Litigation, 573 F.Supp. 278 (W.D.Okl.1983); Durante Bros, and Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat’l Bank, …

See, e.g., Durante Bros. and Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat’l Bank, 571 F.Supp. 489, 492 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (usury action under 215(6) brought over two years after last payment time barred), aff'd in part vacated in part 755 F.2d 289 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 906 , 105 S.Ct. 3530 , 87 L.Ed.2d 654 (1985); Shute v. Stattman, 254 A.D. 783, 783 , 4 N.Y.S.2d 746, 747 (2d Dep’t 1938) (usury action must be commenced one year after payment).

See Seawell, supra, 576 F.Supp. at 427; see also Durante Bros. and Sons, Inc. v. Flushing National Bank, 571 F.Supp. 489, 491-93 (E.D.N.Y.1983).