Legal Opinion
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided February 16, 1970PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLouis Grossman, J.
This case is considered on a stipulation of facts amplified by testimony in open court. It appears that plaintiff Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland is the bonding company and subrogee of Hertz, Neumark & Warner, *510stockbrokers and members of the New York Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as Hertz).
In April, 1966, Hertz employed one Richard Jonny as a margin clerk who by May, 1966 had become a registered representative with the firm. On or about May 2, 1966, Jonny received a phone call from an accountant and friend, David Weiss, who stated that he represented two individuals, Finkel…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Critten v. Chemical National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Crawford v. . West Side BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Seaboard National Bank v. Bank of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
- Cohen v. Lincoln Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Gutfreund v. East River National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Intelogic Trace Texcom Group, Inc. v. Merchants National BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1993
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1970
- Dominion Bank, N.A. v. Household Bank, F.S.B.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1993