Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Middle East Banking Co. v. State Street Bank International
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 4, 1987No. Nos. 680, 708, Dockets 86-7804, 86-7894Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMahoney, Circuit Judge
I join the majority in its disposition, as to liability and damages, of MEBCO’s claims against State Street. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s disposition of State Street’s claims against Citibank, and would allow State Street to recover over against Citibank the damages assessed against State Street in behalf of MEBCO. This result would moot for me State Street’s claims against SAMBA, and leave Citibank to pursue any claims which it might wish to assert1 against SAMBA.
There appears to be common ground that this case is governed by New York law, although this is assumed…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Metzger v. . &198tna Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Moffett, Hodgkins & Clarke Co. v. RochesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Da Silva v. MussoNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Rosenblum v. Manufacturers Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.