Hartley v Amalgamated Bank of N.Y.
Annotate this Case
[*1]
Hartley v Amalgamated Bank of N.Y.
2017 NY Slip Op 50018(U)
Decided on January 12, 2017
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on January 12, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Gonzalez, J.
570526/16
Roger Hartley, Plaintiff-Appellant,
against
Amalgamated Bank of New York, Defendant-Respondent.
A judgment rendered in the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court will be sustained on appeal unless it is shown that "substantial justice" has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]). Applying that limited standard of review here, we find no basis to disturb the judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's claims after a full trial. The record supports Civil Court's finding that plaintiff failed to prove any misconduct or other causal connection between defendant bank's handling of the wire transfer and plaintiff's failure to receive the goods he ordered from a nonparty vendor, particularly since the evidence establishes that the funds were received by the intended nonparty vendor with whom plaintiff had been dealing. The trial court properly rejected plaintiff's attempt to impose liability for the nondelivery of the goods on defendant bank, which merely transferred the funds at plaintiff's direction.
I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 12, 2017
Decided on January 12, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Gonzalez, J.
570526/16
Roger Hartley, Plaintiff-Appellant,
against
Amalgamated Bank of New York, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an amended judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered September 22, 2015, after trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.
Per Curiam.
Amended judgment (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered September 22, 2015, affirmed, without costs.
A judgment rendered in the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court will be sustained on appeal unless it is shown that "substantial justice" has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]). Applying that limited standard of review here, we find no basis to disturb the judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's claims after a full trial. The record supports Civil Court's finding that plaintiff failed to prove any misconduct or other causal connection between defendant bank's handling of the wire transfer and plaintiff's failure to receive the goods he ordered from a nonparty vendor, particularly since the evidence establishes that the funds were received by the intended nonparty vendor with whom plaintiff had been dealing. The trial court properly rejected plaintiff's attempt to impose liability for the nondelivery of the goods on defendant bank, which merely transferred the funds at plaintiff's direction.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 12, 2017
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
