Legal Opinion
Hughes v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.
Rochester City Court
Decided January 15, 1985PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
John Manning Regan, J.
There are no controverted questions of fact between the parties to this action in respect to any material issue. Accordingly, this motion for summary judgment presents solely a question of law, and this court should, and will, proceed to judgment. (CPLR 3212 [b].)1
*210Plaintiffs, Dr. and Mrs. Frederick Hughes, are depositors in the defendant, Marine Midland’s, bank. They have transacted banking with the defendant at its office on East Avenue in Rochester, New York, for some years.
In February 1983 the plaintiffs were on vacation in Sarasota, Florida. In…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Auten v. AutenNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- American Defense Society, Inc. v. Sherman National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Sunshine v. Bankers Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Brenner v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
- Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York v. BattatNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Best v. Dreyfus Liquid Assets, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1987
- Kunkel v. First National Bank of Devils LakeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
- Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. BerryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Professional Savings Bank v. Galloway Farm Nursery, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
- Rovell v. American National Bank (In Re Rovell)District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.