Case Name: In the Matter of the Northern Bank of New York, in Liquidation; In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Appellant, for an Order Directing The Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent, to Pay Its Claim as a Preferred Claim
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-10-20
Citations: 212 N.Y. 608
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Northern Bank of New York, in Liquidation. In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Appellant, for an Order Directing The Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent, to Pay Its Claim as a Preferred Claim.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 212
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Northern Bank of New York, in Liquidation. In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Appellant, for an Order Directing The Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent, to Pay Its Claim as a Preferred Claim.
Matter of Northern Bank, of New York, 163 App. Div. 974, affirmed.
(Argued October 6, 1914;
decided October 30, 1914.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 5, 1914, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for an order directing the superintendent of banks of the state of New York to pay the claim of the city of New York against the Northern Bank of New York in full as a preferred claim.
The following questions were certified: “ 1. Upon the facts stated in the moving papers, is the city of New York entitled to preference in the payment of the moneys on deposit in the Northern Bank of New York to its credit at the time it was taken charge of by the superintendent of banks for the purpose of liquidation ? 2. Is the city of New York in claiming such preference in the payment of such moneys on deposit in the Northern Bank of New York to its credit barred by the Statute of Limitations contained in section 19 of the Banking Law of the state of New York ? 3. Is the claim of the city of New York for such general preference barred by the order filed in the Supreme Court on December 6, 1911, affirming the report of Referee Ernest Hall, which denied the claim of the city of New York to a priority as to $6,818.21 based solely upon the allegation that such sum had been received by said bank after banking hours with the knowledge of the officers of said bank that it was not in a safe and solvent condition and had not been entered on the cash book of the city nor upon the books of the bank ? ”
Frank L. Polk, Corporation Counsel (.Frederic B. Coudert, Charles A. Conlon and George P. Nicholson of counsel), for appellant.
Henry H. Abbott, Edward A. Craighill, Jr., and Lester C. Burdett for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs; first question certified answered in the negative; second and third questions certified not answered; no opinion.
Concur: Werner, Hisoock, Chase, Collin, Hogan and Miller, JJ. Taking no part: Cardozo, J.