Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Chemical Bank

Civil Court of the City of New York

Decided September 10, 1975PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen Murray Myers, J.

In this proceeding pursuant to section 217-a of the Judiciary Law, we are faced with the question of whether a bank, through its salaried in-house counsel, may recover a judgment for attorney’s fees as provided for in its consumer loan agreements in the event that the bank is forced to institute suit to collect an unpaid loan from a defaulting debtor.

The parties agree that section 108 of the Banking Law provides the answer. The pertinent provisions of section 108 are subdivisions 4 (par [c], cl [iii]) and 5 (par [e], cl [iii]). They *723are almost identical and provide as follows: "The maximum…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Vee Bee Service Co. v. Household Finance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
  2. People v. CubiottiRochester City Court · 1956
  3. People v. NadlerNew York City Magistrates' Court · 1955

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Mead v. First Trust & Deposit Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  2. CHASE BANK USA v. StaffenbergNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2011
  3. National Commercial Bank & Trust Co v. Farina's Market, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Mead v. First Trust & Deposit Co.New York Supreme Court · 1977
  5. PLCM Group, Inc. v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API