Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Chalasani v. State Bank of India

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 21, 1997

235 A.D.2d 449; 653 N.Y.S.2d 2; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 401

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Oppedisano v. Zur (District Court, S.D. New York 2025)
Kazi v. General Electric Capital Business Asset Funding Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kazi v. General Electric Capital Business Asset Funding Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Zorbas v. United States Trust Co. (District Court, E.D. New York 2014)
Lawrence v. Kennedy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
LoGerfo v. Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
LoGerfo v. Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Akkaya v. Prime Time Transportation, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
AMP Services Ltd. v. Walanpatrias Foundation (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
El-Khoury v. Karasik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated November 1, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s first cause of action for an accounting by the defendant of the proceeds of the sale of certain apartment units held by it as collateral and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*450The right to an accounting rests on the existence of a trust or fiduciary relationship with reference to the subject matter of the controversy (see, Grossman v Laurence Handprints— N.J., 90 AD2d 95, 104; Pelkey v Pelkey, 236 App Div 55). Such a relationship exists here by virtue of the parties’ status as pledgor and pledgee (see, South Shore Thrift Corp. v National Bank, 276 NY 465; Miami Natl. Bank v Berlanti Constr. Co., 24 AD2d 632, 633). Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to an accounting with regard to the sale of the apartment units which were held as collateral.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.