N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Banking / ARTICLE Joint Deposits and Shares;
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Banking Law § 675 (2026)

Joint deposits and shares; ownership and payment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 675. Joint deposits and shares; ownership and payment. (a) When a
deposit of cash, securities, or other property has been made or shall
hereafter be made in or with any banking organization or foreign banking
corporation transacting business in this state, or shares shall have
been already issued or shall be hereafter issued, in any savings and
loan association or credit union transacting business in this state, in
the name of such depositor or shareholder and another person and in form
to be paid or delivered to either, or the survivor of them, such deposit
or shares and any additions thereto made, by either of such persons,
after the making thereof, shall become the property of such persons as
joint tenants and the same, together with all additions and accruals
thereon, shall be held for the exclusive use of the persons so named,
and may be paid or delivered to either during the lifetime of both or to
the survivor after the death of one of them, and such payment or
delivery and the receipt or acquittance of the one to whom such payment
or delivery is made, shall be a valid and sufficient release and
discharge to the banking organization or foreign banking corporation for
all payments or deliveries made on account of such deposit or shares
prior to the receipt by the banking organization or foreign banking
corporation of notice in writing signed by any one of such joint
tenants, not to pay or deliver such deposit or shares and the additions
and accruals thereon in accordance with the terms thereof, and after
receipt of any such notice, the banking organization or foreign banking
corporation may require the receipt or acquittance of both such joint
tenants for any further payments or delivery.
  (b) The making of such deposit or the issuance of such shares in such
form shall, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, be prima facie
evidence, in any action or proceeding to which the banking organization,
foreign banking corporation, surviving depositor or shareholder is a
party, of the intention of both depositors or shareholders to create a
joint tenancy and to vest title to such deposit or shares, and additions
and accruals thereon, in such survivor. The burden of proof in refuting
such prima facie evidence is upon the party or parties challenging the
title of the survivor.
  (c) 1. The superintendent of financial services shall promulgate and
may from time to time amend rules and regulations which require that the
joint tenants of an account established on or after the date on which
the rule or regulation becomes effective and representing any deposit or
shares governed by the foregoing provisions of this section, shall, at
the time the account is established be informed of the terms and
conditions of the account including the relationship and consequences
between the parties in the account and the responsibilities of the
institution with which the account is established.
  2. This subdivision or any rule or regulation thereunder shall not be
deemed or construed as increasing or diminishing the rights or liability
of any person, or other entity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 145 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: In re the Est. of Stalter, 270 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Est. of Stalter, 270 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · cites it 6× “Banking Law § 675 (a) provides, in relevant part, as follows: “When a deposit of cash * * * has been made * * * in the name of [the] depositor * * * and another person and in form to be paid or delivered to either, or the survivor of them, such deposit * * * and any additions…”
In re the Est. of Corcoran, 63 A.D.3d 93 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 4× “Petitioner argues that the presumption set forth in Banking Law § 675 does not apply to three of decedent’s joint accounts— namely, a Charles Schwab brokerage account, a First Niagara Bank savings account and a Trustco Bank account.”
Rosenzweig v. Friedland, 84 A.D.3d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 4× “and another person and in form to be paid or delivered to either, or the survivor of them’ constitutes prima facie evidence of an intent to create a joint tenancy” (Matter of Fayo, 7 AD3d 795, 796 [2004], quoting Banking Law § 675 [a]; see Adams v Hickey, 35 AD3d 328, 330…”
Mendelsohn v. Jacobowitz (In Re Jacobs), 394 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2008). · cites it 2× “of the one to whom such payment or delivery is made, shall be a valid and sufficient release and discharge to the banking organization .”
Albertalli v. Albertalli, 124 A.D.3d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). “* Although the funds received by the husband as a gift from his grandfather prior to the marriage are considered separate property (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [1]), they presumptively became marital property once he deposited them into a joint account (see…”
Signature Bank v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 67 A.D.3d 917 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 2× ““Generally, the deposit of funds into a joint account constitutes prima facie evidence of an intent to create a joint tenancy” (Matter of Richichi, 38 AD3d 558, 559 [2007]; see Banking Law § 675 [b]; Matter of Dubin, 54 AD3d 947, 949 [2008]).”
In re the Est. of Fayo, 7 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · cites it 4× “in form to be paid or delivered to either, or the survivor of them” constitutes prima facie evidence of an intent to create a joint tenancy (Banking Law § 675 [a], [b]). The presumption of a joint tenancy created by Banking Law § 675 can be rebutted by evidence showing that “the…”
Mullen v. Linnane, 218 A.D.2d 50 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · cites it 5× “At issue on this appeal is whether petitioner, decedent’s son and ancillary executor of her estate, has overcome the statutory presumption that certain joint bank accounts established by decedent were intended to vest property rights in his only sibling, Kathleen Linnane, the…”
Matter of Najjar (Sanzone), 2021 NY Slip Op 03777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). · cites it 3× “With respect to the four bank accounts, the Surrogate reasoned that respondent failed to show that she was a joint tenant with a right of survivorship pursuant to Banking Law § 675 and petitioners established those accounts were mere convenience accounts held by respondent and…”
In re the Est. of Johnson, 7 A.D.3d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · cites it 3× “Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 for a judgment ordering the proceeds of the account to be turned over to the estate.”
Signorile v. Signorile, 102 A.D.3d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · cites it 2× “When spouses hold property in a joint account, however, a rebuttable presumption arises that both have an undivided one-half interest in it (see Banking Law § 675 [b]; Chamberlain v Chamberlain, 24 AD3d at 593 ; Tayar v Tayar, 208 AD2d 609, 610 [1994]).”
In re the Est. of Harrison, 184 A.D.2d 42 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). · cites it 5× “In opposition to that motion, Harrison submitted copies of signature cards for two of the four accounts clearly establishing that they were created in accord with the requirements of Banking Law § 675 (a), an affidavit from a representative of the third bank that the signature…”
Show all 145 citing cases →
N.Y. Banking Law § 675(b): 1 case
Matter of Ostrowski, 2025 NY Slip Op 50708(U) (N.Y. Surr. Ct., Erie Cty. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.