Opinion ID: 174724
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction over Descatrade's Bank Account in Paris

Text: Allied argues that BNP Paribas's presence in New York is sufficient to permit the District Court to exercise jurisdiction over Descatrade's account at BNP Paribas in Paris. We disagree. The District Court did not have jurisdiction over Descatrade's account with BNP Paribas in Paris. Under New York law, [3] the separate entity rule dictates that `each branch of a bank [be] treated as a separate entity for attachment purposes.' Sabre Shipping Corp., 341 F.2d at 53 (quoting Cronan v. Schilling, 100 N.Y.S.2d 474, 476 (Sup.Ct., N.Y.Cnty.1950)); see McCloskey v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 11 N.Y.2d 936, 937, 228 N.Y.S.2d 825, 183 N.E.2d 227 (1962) (assets in a foreign branch cannot be attached in New York). As a result, the debt owed by a branch finds its situs within the territorial jurisdiction of [that] branch. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Put differently, the mere fact that a bank may have a branch within New York is insufficient to render accounts outside of New York subject to attachment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, No. 08 Civ. 7834, 2009 WL 3003242, at  (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The parties do not dispute that Descatrade's only account with BNP Paribas is in Paris. Applying the separate entity rule, because Descatrade's account with BNP Paribas is in Parisand only in Paristhat account cannot be attached in New York. We agree with the District Court that if Allied seeks to attach Descatrade's bank accounts, it may do so only at the branch where the account exists. Allied Maritime, 2009 WL 4884160, at .