BRADFORD TRUST COMPANY v. CITIBANK, N.A., 60 N.Y.2d 868 (1983)

458 N.E.2d 820, 470 N.Y.S.2d 361

BRADFORD TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued October 17, 1983
Decided November 22, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, RICHARD W. WALLACH, J.

Page 869

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

Page 870

Christopher J. Collins and Louis J. Maione for appellant.

Annette Wheeler and Joanna Shally for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Although there are circumstances under which the drawer of a negotiable instrument may have a cause of action against a depositary bank that has paid over a forged but effective indorsement, Special Term correctly determined that the factors urged by plaintiff as establishing that the depositary bank wrongfully paid the instrument are insufficient to invoke that rule of liability. The subject instrument was not paid in a manner inconsistent with any restrictive indorsement (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-205), nor was the instrument improperly or inadequately indorsed (Uniform Commercial Code, §§ 3-117, 3-204). Finally, there is no requirement that a check payable to a fiduciary be deposited to a fiduciary account, and the fact that the instrument was not so deposited may not, without more, be relied upon as establishing a wrongful payment on the part of the depositary bank (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-304, subd [2]).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.

Page 871

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified not answered as unnecessary.