Baquerizo v. Monasterio
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Zi Kuo Zhang v. Lau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Shan Yun Lin v. Lau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Sasidharan v. Piverger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- O'Toole, solely in her capacity as Chapter 7 v. M. Cabrera & Associates, P.C. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2025)
- O'Toole, solely in her capacity as Chapter 7 v. M. Cabrera & Associates, P.C. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2025)
- Hosannah v. Millennium Abstract Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Lantz v. Lantz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Gargano v. Morey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Leak v. Live Well Financial, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Educational Center for New Americans, Inc. v. 66th Avenue Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- 184 Joralemon, LLC v. Brklyn Hts Condos, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- 184 Joralemon, LLC v. Brklyn Hts Condos, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Lizjan, Inc. v. Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker, PLLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Lizjan, Inc. v. Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker, PLLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Lawrence v. Kennedy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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
An escrow agent “not only has a contractual duty to follow the escrow agreement, but additionally becomes a trustee of anyone with a beneficial interest in the trust” (Takayama v Schaefer, 240 AD2d 21, 25 [1998]). Accordingly, the escrow agent has a duty not to deliver the property held in escrow to anyone except upon “strict compliance with the conditions imposed” in the escrow agreement (id. at 25 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Thus, an escrow agent can be held liable for breach of the escrow agreement and breach of fiduciary duty as escrowee” (id. at 25; see Grinblat v Taubenblat, 107 AD2d 735 [1985]). An attorney holding funds in escrow owes a fiduciary duty “to ‘anyone with a beneficial interest in the trust’ ” (Levit v Allstate Ins. Co., 308 AD2d 475, 477 [2003], quoting Takayama v Schaefer, 240 AD2d at 25).
While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s reliance upon lack of privity as a basis for dismissing the causes of action sounding in breach of the subject escrow agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant’s motion to dismiss those causes of action was properly granted, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). The documentary evidence submitted on the motion included the escrow agreement, which contained an exculpatory clause that bound the plaintiffs and waived any liability against the defendant except for gross negligence or willful misconduct (see Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 553 [1992]). Furthermore, the complaint did not contain any factual allegations of gross negligence or willful misconduct, and the documentary ev
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.