Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dave's Heavy Towing, Inc. v. PNC Bank

June 3, 2010

DAVE'S HEAVY TOWING, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
PNC BANK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND DEBORAH DYNAK, DEFENDANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-559-08.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued April 26, 2010

Before Judges Baxter and Alvarez.

Plaintiff Dave's Heavy Towing, Inc. appeals from a July 17, 2009 grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant PNC Bank, and the September 11, 2009 denial of a subsequent motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Plaintiff's bookkeeper, defendant Deborah Dynak, embezzled approximately $673,006.88 from her employer, over the course of nearly seven years. Plaintiff maintained its business checking account at PNC and David Bender, plaintiff's president, was the authorized signatory. Dynak accomplished the thefts by forging Bender's signature on business checks made payable to "D D Buenhora" and "Murray Rude," fictitious persons. Additionally, Dynak directly paid her credit card bills at Merrick Bank and Providian Bank from plaintiff's account.

It is undisputed that during the course of the seven years, monthly statements and cancelled checks were issued to plaintiff. Bender did not learn until October 18, 2007, when he examined his bank statements, that Dynak was forging his signature. Ultimately, Dynak was convicted of second-degree theft. A default judgment has been entered against her in these proceedings.

Plaintiff's complaint asserts: (1) that PNC was strictly liable for the issued checks; (2) that PNC breached its contract with plaintiff; and (3) ordinary negligence on PNC's part. Plaintiff sought punitive damages, compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and prejudgment interest.

The standard of review on a motion for summary judgment is the same as that applied by the trial court. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162, 167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998). "Bare conclusions in the pleadings, without factual support in tendered affidavits, will not defeat a meritorious application for summary judgment." U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 67 N.J. Super. 384, 399-400 (1961). A movant must establish that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law." R. 4:46-2(c). See also Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 535 (1995).

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its complaint. We do not agree. N.J.S.A. 12A:4-406c states:

If a bank sends or makes available a statement of account or items pursuant to subsection a. of this section, the customer must exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or items to determine whether any payment was not authorized because of an alteration of an item or because a purported signature by or on behalf of the customer was not authorized. If, based on the statement or items provided, the customer should reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment, the customer must promptly notify the bank of the relevant facts.

The motion court read this statutory language to mean that the burden is upon the account holder to establish that he or she exercised "reasonable promptness" in examining the statements and cancelled checks. We agree.

Here, plaintiff did not detect the fraud until October 2007, despite having received statements and cancelled checks for seven years. In answers to interrogatories, plaintiff claimed both that Dynak discarded "bank documentation" that would have resulted in prompt discovery of her wrongdoing, and that Dynak's forgeries appeared to be payments for legitimate business expenses and therefore were, in some unspecified manner, thereby undetectable. In either event, the burden remains with the account holder. He is not relieved from the obligation to discover the forgery merely because it is committed by the very person charged with the responsibility of balancing the account. Traveler's Indem. Co. v. Good, 325 N.J. Super. 16, 24 (App. Div. 1999).

As plaintiff points out, a bank's duty is to charge its customer's accounts only for those items that are "'properly payable.'" Lor-Mar/Toto, Inc. v. 1st Constitution Bank, 376 N.J. Super. 520, 528 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting N.J.S.A. 12A:4-401a). But the analysis, unfortunately for plaintiff, does not end there. The bank's fiduciary responsibility does not eliminate the customer's obligation to "exercise reasonable promptness in" reviewing his account records. See N.J.S.A. 12A:4-406c. Where a customer does not fulfill that obligation, the customer is precluded from asserting claims against the bank. See N.J.S.A. 12A:4-406d(2). In this case, it is undisputed that Bender only discovered the embezzlement when he finally reviewed the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.