New York Court of Appeals, 1982

LeBovici v. Jamaica Savings Bank

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 23, 1982

56 N.Y.2d 522; 434 N.E.2d 1332

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)
Royal Mortgage Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 1998)
Shane v. WCAU-TV, CBS Television Stations, Division of CBS, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1989)
Murphy v. Gutfreund (District Court, S.D. New York 1984)
Ayala v. Jamaica Savings Bank (New York Supreme Court 1983)
Dogwood Residential, LLC v. Stable 49, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Megaris Furs, Inc. v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Citicorp Services, Inc. v. Hussain (New York Supreme Court 1989)
Ayala v. Jamaica Savings Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Petitioners agreed that their deposit would only “be payable at maturity”, and in exchange for petitioners’ commitment of their funds for a fixed period of time the bank agreed to pay a higher rate of interest than is applicable to savings accounts where withdrawal is permitted upon demand. This agreement was not illusory nor was it rendered illusory by the inclusion of the following provision: “If withdrawal is permitted prior to maturity on Time Savings Accounts, Federal. Deposit Insurance Corporation regulations require as a minimum penalty” a specified amount. Petitioners are mistaken-in their belief that this creates an illusory promise because the bank promised “to permit petitioners to withdraw their money at an earlier date, if the *** bank permitted early withdrawals”. Actually this provision simply specified the consequences of an early withdrawal should the parties subsequently agree to modify or terminate the agreement in this manner. As the agreement itself indicates these are consequences imposed by Federal law (12 CFR 329.4 [f]) and the provision does little more than inform the petitioners of them.

*524Nor may the petitioners seek to estop the bank from enforcing its contractual right to withhold payment until maturity. The statements made by the bank’s officer regarding past practices did not represent a promise or “implied consent” to permit early withdrawal in the future as petitioners contend.

We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and have found them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.