james g. mcarney esq 29 broadway, suite 1400 new york, … · edwards’ home office, were all,...

Plaintiff Françoise N. Edwards (“Mrs. Edwards”), individually, and as Executrix of the

Estate of Byron T. Edwards (the “Estate”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through the

undersigned counsel, as and for her Complaint against Defendants Peapack-Gladstone Financial

Corporation d/b/a Peapack-Gladstone Bank (the “Bank”) and Alexandria Peterson (“Peterson”)

(collectively, “Defendants”), states as follows:

SUMMARY

1. Between May 11, 2018, and August 6, 2018, defendant Alexandria Peterson, then

employed by Mrs. Edwards, wrongfully stole and converted to her own use and benefit

approximately $76,583.87 by presenting for payment a total of 113 illegitimate, forged checks

JAMES G. MCCARNEY, ESQ. 29 Broadway, Suite 1400 New York, New York 10006 212.797.1338 Attorneys for Plaintiff

James G. McCarney, Esq. Attorney ID # 034631982

FRANÇOISE N. EDWARDS, individually, and as Executrix of the ESTATE OF BYRON T. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff, v. PEAPACK-GLADSONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION d/b/a Peapack-Gladstone Bank and ALEXANDRIA PETERSON,

Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: HUNTERDON COUNTY DOCKET NO. _____________________

Civil Action

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

HNT-L-000408-18 10/18/2018 4:43:48 PM Pg 1 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20181822696

2

written on the Peapack-Gladstone Bank and Citibank N.A.1 checking accounts of Mrs. Edwards

and of the Estate. These checks, written by Peterson from three checkbooks kept in Mrs.

Edwards’ home office, were all, except for two (see Paragraph 24 below), made payable to

“Alexandria Peterson” and varied in amount from $100.00 to $1,000.00, specified a range of

irrelevant and fictitious memo annotations, and were signed by Peterson with the forged

signature of Mrs. Edwards.

2. The nature of these checks—including the unusual number, the forged signatures, the

amounts payable, the bogus memo descriptions, and the timing and frequency with which they

were drawn—should have alerted defendant Peapack-Gladstone Bank, whose employees knew

Mrs. Edwards well, that the checks were sham forgeries and that the defendant Peterson was

looting the accounts.

3. Nonetheless, the Bank accepted and paid all of the checks without inquiring into the

authenticity of the signatures, the legitimacy of the checks, or the unusual frequency of activity

for accounts that had previously had very little transactional activity.

4. At times, multiple checks were issued on the same or consecutive days—often for

identical amounts—and were honored by the Bank, despite the fact that the Bank knew that Mrs.

Edwards was out of the country for a significant portion of the time during which the checks

were drawn. Upon information and belief, the Bank never filed a Suspicious Activity Report

regarding the transactions.

5. As a result of Peterson’s fraud and the Bank’s negligence and breaches of contract and

fiduciary duty, the accounts of Mrs. Edwards and the Estate were looted causing damage to the

1 Citibank, N.A. promptly repaid to Mrs. Edwards the $4,575.00 looted from her Citibank account by Peterson.

Citibank, N.A., therefore, is not a named defendant in this action, and that amount has not been included in the

calculations of damages demanded by Plaintiffs.


3

respective plaintiffs and their accounts in the amounts of $23,210.00 and $48,798.87,

respectively.

6. This action is brought against the defendant Bank for its negligence in failing to adhere

to sound banking rules and practices, regulations, and standards of care, and against defendant

Peterson for theft and conversion of a collective total of $72,008.87 belonging to Mrs. Edwards

and the Estate.

THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Françoise Edwards, an individual, is now and was at all times mentioned herein

a resident of the State of New Jersey, residing at 670 Woodglen Road, Glen Gardner, New Jersey

08826, in Hunterdon County, New Jersey.

8. Mrs. Edwards serves as Executrix of the Estate (the “Estate”) of her late husband, Byron

T. Edwards, by Letters Testamentary issued to her upon the admission to probate of the Last Will

and Testament of Byron T. Edwards in the New Jersey Surrogate’s Court for Hunterdon County

on October 20, 2017 (Docket No. 50635). Mrs. Edwards, as Executrix, brings certain claims

herein on behalf of the Estate for damages incurred by the Estate that are separate and distinct

from the claims brought in her individual capacity.

9. Defendant Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation d/b/a Peapack-Gladstone Bank (the

“Bank”) is now and was at all times mentioned herein a banking corporation authorized to do

business under the laws of the State of New Jersey, is headquartered in Bedminster, New Jersey,

and has various local branches throughout New Jersey, including the one utilized by Plaintiffs

located at 438 County Road 513, Califon, New Jersey 07830, in Hunterdon County New Jersey.


4

10. Defendant Alexandria Peterson (“Peterson”), an individual, is now and was at all times

mentioned herein a resident of the State of New Jersey residing at 97 Main Street, Glen Gardner,

New Jersey 08826, in Hunterdon County.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. Jurisdiction and venue in this Court are proper under New Jersey Court Rules 4:3-

1(a)(5), 4:3-2(a)(3), and 4:3-2(b) because defendant Bank is incorporated in New Jersey,

headquartered in New Jersey, and conducts business through its branch located in Hunterdon

County where the accounts at issue were maintained. Further, defendant Peterson is and was at

all times mentioned herein a resident of Hunterdon County, Mrs. Edwards is and was at all times

mentioned herein a resident of Hunterdon County, and the events giving rise to this Complaint

occurred in Hunterdon County.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. Following her husband’s death on September 27, 2017, Mrs. Edwards was appointed

Executrix of the Estate of Byron T. Edwards and proceeded to open a checking account with

Peapack-Gladsone Bank on behalf of the Estate to handle the Estate’s funds during the Estate

proceedings in the Surrogate’s Court for Hunterdon County, New Jersey.

13. Mrs. Edwards knew Peterson as the niece of her former housekeeper who passed away

in the spring of 2018. Upon information and belief, Peterson lives with her grandmother, Diane

Farley, and her grandmother’s husband, Ray Farley, a man whom Mr. and Mrs. Edwards

employed for several years to assist with chores and maintenance at their home in Glen Gardner,

New Jersey.

14. In early May 2018, following the death of Peterson’s aunt, Mrs. Edwards invited

Peterson and her grandmother for dinner at her home in an attempt to comfort and console the


5

two women who, like her, had experienced a recent death in the family. At dinner Mrs. Edwards

mentioned how emotionally upsetting it was to be still surrounded by her late husband’s

belongings, and Peterson offered her assistance in disposing of these. Mrs. Edwards offered to

pay Peterson $15.00 per hour to assist her with sorting through and disposing of Mr. Edwards’

belongings.

15. A few days later, and before May 13, 2018, Peterson reported for work at Mrs. Edwards’

home. During her employment with Mrs. Edwards, Peterson performed simple tasks specifically

requested by Mrs. Edwards, including collecting and organizing certain of Mr. Edwards’

belongings prior to their donation to various charities and other groups. At times, Peterson also

performed light household cleaning tasks when requested to do so by Mrs. Edwards. Because

she had another part-time job at a golf club nearby, however, Peterson worked for Mrs. Edwards

only one or two days a week and rarely, if ever, for more than one or two hours at a time. Mrs.

Edwards typically paid Peterson in cash except for one instance when Peterson worked for more

than two hours and was paid instead by check.

16. At no time was Peterson asked to perform household business tasks such as paying bills

or dealing with correspondence. She did not run errands or perform yard work. She was never

asked to shop for Mrs. Edwards or to make purchases with her own funds for reimbursement by

Mrs. Edwards later. She was never asked or given permission to enter Mrs. Edwards home when

Mrs. Edwards was not present, and, although she may have sought access to the Edwards home

by means of her step-grandfather’s key, she was not given her own key to Mrs. Edwards’ home.

17. During the course of Peterson’s employment, Mrs. Edwards maintained two checking

accounts with Peapack-Gladstone Bank: (1) the Estate’s checking account, numbered

500006302, under the name “Byron T. Edwards Estate” (the “Estate Account”); and (2) a


6

personal checking account, numbered 6714265, under the name “Françoise N. Edwards” (the

“Personal Account”). At all times during Peterson’s employment, Mrs. Edwards kept the

checkbooks for both the Estate Account and the Personal Account on her desk in her home

office.

18. Mrs. Edwards also maintained a checking account, numbered 51030365, with Citibank

N.A. under the name “Françoise N. Edwards” (the “Citi Account”). The checkbook for the Citi

Account was kept inside a drawer of the desk in her home office.

19. At no time during Peterson’s employment with Mrs. Edwards did Peterson have the

authority or responsibility to sign or endorse checks on behalf of Mrs. Edwards or on behalf of

the Estate from any account, and she had no reason or instructions to access the home office

except on a few occasions when specifically requested by Mrs. Edwards—in Mrs. Edwards’

presence—to assist with computer operations.

20. Defendant Bank knew, or should have known, that no one but Mrs. Edwards was

authorized to cash or otherwise negotiate checks on either of the two accounts at the Bank.

21. From its opening in October 2017 until May 2018, not a single check was written on the

Estate Account.

22. On May 1, 2018, the balance in the Estate Account at Peapack-Gladstone Bank was

approximately $46,987.71.

23. Beginning on or around May 11, 2018, only a few days after Peterson began working for

Mrs. Edwards, a series of unusual withdrawals were made from the Estate Account.

24. Between May 16, 2018, and July 12, 2018 (57 days), a total of 74 checks totaling

$48,798.87 cleared from the Estate Account. Seventy-two of those checks were written by

Peterson, made out to “Alexandria Peterson,” and signed by Peterson with a forged signature


7

purporting to be that of Mrs. Edwards. The remaining 2 checks (for $500.00 each) were made

out to Diane Farley, Peterson’s grandmother, and were also signed by Peterson with a forged

signature purporting to be that of Mrs. Edwards. True and correct copies of these 74 checks from

the Estate Account are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

25. Mrs. Edwards neither had knowledge of, nor did she sign, or authorize Peterson to sign

on her behalf, any of the 74 checks drawn on the Estate Account. This high volume of

withdrawal activity departed significantly from Mrs. Edwards’ past passive pattern of use of the

Estate Account, on which she had never before written a single check.

26. On July 5, 2018, while Peterson, almost daily, was writing checks undetected on the

Estate Account, Mrs. Edwards visited her local Peapack-Gladstone Bank branch in Califon, New

Jersey to withdraw money in preparation for a scheduled trip to France. While she was in the

Bank that day, Mrs. Edwards informed the Bank that she would be traveling in the following

weeks and discussed her upcoming trip both with the Bank employees and with the branch

manager. The Bank employees to whom she spoke were aware of her trip and wished her well.

Later that day, Mrs. Edwards traveled to her Manhattan apartment in New York City and then

departed for France from John F. Kennedy Airport on July 11, 2018.

27. By July 12, 2018, the day after Mrs. Edwards had departed New York for France, the

Estate Account had been almost entirely looted. Upon information and belief, because Peterson

had that same day written two checks from the Estate Account for $990.00 (check #157) and

$850.00 (check #158) (Exhibit A at p.6), Peterson decided to write a check from Mrs. Edwards’

Personal Account for $1,700.00 (check #4054) (Exhibit B at p.1) made out to the Estate

Account, transferring $1,700.00 from the Personal Account into the Estate Account to cover

what otherwise might have been insufficient funds (the “Transfer Check”). Again, Peterson


8

forged Mrs. Edwards’ signature on this check without Mrs. Edwards’ knowledge, permission or

authorization. 2

28. Between July 12 and August 6, 2018, the fraudulent withdrawals from Mrs. Edwards’

deposits changed from one account to the other. Peterson ceased writing checks from the Estate

Account and instead began to write checks from Mrs. Edwards’ Personal Account. During that

period (25 days), Peterson forged 30 additional checks from the Personal Account, together with

the Transfer Check totaling $23,210.00 in withdrawals.3 All of those checks were made out to

“Alexandria Peterson” and signed by Peterson with a forged signature purporting to be that of

Mrs. Edwards and without Mrs. Edwards’ knowledge, permission or authorization. True and

correct copies of these 30 checks, plus the one check written from the Personal Account to the

Estate Account, are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

29. Additionally, between July 24, 2018 and August 6, 2018 (13 days), Peterson forged 8

additional checks from the Citibank Account, totaling $4,575.00. True and correct copies of the

8 checks from the Citi Account are attached hereto as Exhibit C.

30. Upon her return to New York on August 3, 2018, Mrs. Edwards traveled by car directly

from John F. Kennedy Airport to East Hampton, New York for the weekend. While she was in

East Hampton, on Sunday, August 5, 2018, she received an unusual text message from Peterson

asking Mrs. Edwards to call her when she arrived home in New Jersey.

31. On Monday, August 6, 2018, upon her return to New Jersey, Mrs. Edwards received two

voicemails from the Bank saying only that “there was a problem” with her accounts. Mrs.

2 Between May 16 and July 12, 2018, Peterson’s checks depleted the Estate Account from $46,987.71 to $53.84.

Peterson’s forged checks were the only checks written on the Estate Account during this time.

3 Between the day that Mrs. Edwards left New Jersey for her trip to France, July 5, 2018, and the day she returned,

August, 3, 2018, the balance in the Personal Account was depleted from $23,430.83 to $2,199.21 by 28 checks, all

forged by Peterson. No other checks were drawn on the Personal Account during that time. The final two checks for

$995.00 and $980.00 (Exhibit B at pp.4-5) were cashed on August 6, following Mrs. Edwards’ return.


9

Edwards immediately called the Bank and was told by the branch manager that there had been

fraudulent activity on her accounts and that she should come in for a meeting at the Bank’s

branch in Califon. Mrs. Edwards arrived at the Bank late that afternoon, and it was only then

that Mrs. Edwards learned that Peterson had been forging checks on her accounts. The Bank had

said that it detected the fraud only earlier that day when, after cashing two checks already on the

Personal Account, Peterson attempted to cash an additional check on the Estate Account at a

different Peapack-Gladstone Bank branch. That check had been rejected for insufficient funds, as

only $53.84 remained in the Estate Account at that time. Upon the advice of the Bank, Mrs.

Edwards drove directly to the police as soon as she left the Bank and reported the theft in person.

32. The following day, Tuesday August 7, 2018, Mrs. Edwards again received two text

messages from Peterson asking, “Can I come over and speak with you today? It’s rather

important,” and “Please call me it’s very very important and something I have just found out

today.” Mrs. Edwards did not respond to Peterson’s texts.

33. Following her discovery of the fraudulent checks, Mrs. Edwards also discovered and

reported to police that several of her personal belongings and those of her late husband had gone

missing from her home while she was away, including a gun from Mr. Edwards’ collection, a

Rolex watch, and over a dozen designer silk scarves (total value estimated at no less than

$10,000.00). On August 11, 2018, Peterson was arrested by the Lebanon Township Police in

Glen Gardner, New Jersey, charged with theft, forgery, and receipt of stolen property, and

released from custody the following day.

34. In total, between May 13 and August 6, 2018, Peterson forged 113 checks on the Estate

Account, Personal Account, and Citi Account, 112 of which were cashed by Peterson (plus the


10

deposited Transfer Check). Those 113 checks totaling $76,583.87 were stolen from the Estate,

Personal, and Citi Accounts and converted by Peterson for her own use.

35. The memo fields of the checks contained bogus and frequently repetitive descriptions of

alleged purposes, items, and expenses, including items such as “Cleaning,” “Outdoor Work,”

“Computer,” “Weekend Work,” “Car Parts,” “Mechanic Work,” “Loan,” “NJ State Impound,”

“Remaining Block,” “Private Purchase,” “Misc.,” “Window,” “Misc. Personal,” “Range,”

“Personal Matters,” “Special,” “Remaining Balance,” “Job for a Day,” and “Farewell Project.”

36. These fake memo notations had nothing to do with the checks’ actual purposes. Instead,

Peterson cashed these checks at various compliant Peapack-Gladstone Bank branches, including

Mrs. Edwards’ branch in Califon, New Jersey, as well as at other banks throughout New Jersey,

and, upon information and belief, used those funds for her own personal expenses, including for

the purchase of a car.

37. Peterson made out as many as 5 checks in one day, and with the exception of two

checks, the amounts of each check never exceeded $1,000.00. In many instances thousands of

dollars were drawn down in the span of just a few days but spread over ten or more checks. A

substantial number of the checks were written in similar or identical amounts and just under

$1,000.00 (often $900, $950, or $990).

38. During the nearly three months that Peterson was forging checks, defendant Bank knew

or should have known that no one except Mrs. Edwards was authorized to negotiate checks on

either account. Nonetheless, defendant Bank honored the bogus checks Peterson presented

without making reasonable attempts, or any efforts at all, to verify the signatures on the checks

or to ascertain Peterson’s authority to cash the checks and prevent the looting of the accounts.


11

39. The voluminous number of checks drawn on the previously inactive accounts, the

sudden transfer of funds from the Personal Account to the depleted Estate Account, and the

Bank’s knowledge that Mrs. Edwards was out of the country as of July 12, 2018 should have

raised the Bank’s suspicions that the account activity was not only unprecedented, but

unauthorized and criminal.

40. Despite these facts, the Bank failed to recognize or alert Mrs. Edwards that her accounts

were being looted by Ms. Peterson.

41. As a result of the Bank’s failure to notify Mrs. Edwards of this unusual activity, or to

prevent Peterson from stealing and converting funds from the Peapack-Gladstone Bank accounts,

Mrs. Edwards and the Estate have been deprived of funds and suffered damages in the amounts

of $23,210.00 and $48,798.87, respectively.

42. Mrs. Edwards has verified the forgeries with Peapack-Gladstone Bank and has requested

reimbursement for the lost funds, but the Bank has denied those requests. The $4,575.00 stolen

from the Citi Account, by contrast, was fully and promptly reimbursed by Citibank.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE:

VIOLATION OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (Claim by Plaintiff Mrs. Edwards as to Defendant Bank)

43. Mrs. Edwards repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in all of

the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

44. In conducting its business, defendant Peapack-Gladstone Bank has a duty to

customers to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code and, in particular, those provisions

governing negotiable instruments, N.J.S.A, 12A:4-401, et seq.


12

45. The aforesaid failures, including, but not limited to, the failure to determine

whether checks presented were properly charged to Mrs. Edwards’ Personal Account, the failure

to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the presented instruments, the failure to inquire into

Peterson’s authority to cash and/or deposit checks, the failure, upon information and belief, to

adhere to internal proper banking regulations and procedures, the failure to verify the drawer’s

signature, and the failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports, violate reasonable commercial

standards required under the applicable Uniform Commercial Code.

46. As a direct and proximate result of the Bank’s failure to abide by reasonable

commercial standards, Mrs. Edwards individually has been damaged in an amount of

$23,210.00.

COUNT TWO: VIOLATION OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

(Claim by Plaintiff Estate as to Defendant Bank)

47. The Estate repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in all of the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

48. In conducting its business, defendant Peapack-Gladstone Bank has a duty to

customers to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code and, in particular, those provisions

governing negotiable instruments, N.J.S.A, 12A:4-401, et seq.

49. The aforesaid failures, including, but not limited to, the failure to determine

whether checks presented were properly charged to the Estate Account, the failure to exercise

ordinary care in paying or taking the presented instruments, the failure to inquire into Peterson’s

authority to cash and/or deposit checks, the failure, upon information and belief, to adhere to

internal proper banking regulations and procedures, the failure to verify the drawer’s signature,


13

and the failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports violate reasonable commercial standards

required under the applicable Uniform Commercial Code.

50. As a direct and proximate result of the Bank’s failure to abide by reasonable

commercial standards, the Estate has been damaged in an amount of $48,798.87.

COUNT THREE: NEGLIGENCE

(Claim by Plaintiff Mrs. Edwards as to Defendant Bank)



52. The Bank owes a duty of care to customers and users of the banking system to

accept for payment and otherwise process negotiable instruments in a commercially reasonable

manner.

53. As demonstrated by the actions and failures described above, the Bank failed to

exercise its duty of care to adhere to reasonable, usual and customary banking practices and was

otherwise negligent.

54. As a direct and proximate result of the Bank’s failures, omissions, and negligence,

Mrs. Edwards individually has been damaged in an amount of $23,210.00.

COUNT FOUR: NEGLIGENCE




56. The Bank owes a duty of care to customers and users of the banking system to

accept for payment and otherwise process negotiable instruments in a commercially reasonable

manner.


14

57. As demonstrated by the actions and failures described above, the Bank failed to

exercise its duty of care to adhere to reasonable, usual and customary banking practices and was

otherwise negligent.

58. As a direct and proximate result of the Bank’s failures, omissions, and negligence,

the Estate has been damaged in an amount of $48,798.87.

COUNT FIVE: BREACH OF CONTRACT




60. The bank-customer relationship between the Bank and Mrs. Edwards necessarily

implies an agreement to, inter alia, properly administer Mrs. Edwards’ bank accounts and

process negotiable instruments drafted on those accounts in accordance with reasonable banking

practices.

61. By mishandling the Personal Account and the checks for that account as described

above, the Bank breached its agreement with Mrs. Edwards.

62. As a result of these breaches, Mrs. Edwards individually has been damaged in an

amount of $23,210.00.

COUNT SIX: BREACH OF CONTRACT




64. The bank-customer relationship between the Bank and the Estate necessarily

implies an agreement to, inter alia, properly administer the Estate’s bank accounts and process


15

negotiable instruments drafted on those accounts in accordance with reasonable banking

practices.

65. By mishandling the Estate Account and the checks for that account as described

above, the Bank breached its agreement with the Estate.

66. As a result of these breaches, the Estate has been damaged in an amount of

$48,798.87.

COUNT SEVEN: BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING




68. Every agreement and commercial transaction in the State of New Jersey,

including Mrs. Edwards’ account agreement with the Bank, contains implied covenants of good

faith and fair dealing.

69. As demonstrated by the actions described above, the Bank was on constructive, if

not actual, notice of the fraud taking place by the presentation and encashment of the fraudulent

checks and transfers detailed above. Evidence of such notice includes, but is not limited to, the

high volume of checks made payable to a single individual being cashed or deposited by that

single, unrelated and unauthorized person, while the authorized signatory on that account, to the

knowledge of the Bank, was out of the country.

70. The Bank’s failure to investigate or report this suspicious activity breached the

Bank’s implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing.

71. As a direct and proximate result of the Bank’s breaches, the Mrs. Edwards

individually has suffered damages in an amount of $23,210.00.


16

COUNT EIGHT: BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING




73. Every agreement and commercial transaction in the State of New Jersey,

including the Estate’s account agreement with the Bank, contains implied covenants of good

faith and fair dealing.

74. As demonstrated by the actions described above, the Bank was on constructive, if

not actual, notice of the fraud taking place by the presentation and encashment of fraudulent

checks and transfers detailed above. Evidence of such notice includes, but is not limited to, the

high volume of checks made payable to a single individual being cashed or deposited by that

single, unrelated and unauthorized person, while the authorized signatory on that account, to the

knowledge of the Bank, was out of the country.

75. The Bank’s failure to investigate or report this suspicious activity breached the

Bank’s implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing.

76. As a direct and proximate result of the Bank’s breaches, the Estate has suffered

damages in an amount of $48,798.87.

COUNT NINE: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION





17

78. The Bank has a duty to its customers and users of the banking system to supervise

its employees and agents properly and maintain controls to prevent employee malfeasance and

negligence.

79. Upon information and belief, employees of the Bank performed their duties

negligently by not abiding by reasonable banking practices.

80. Upon information and belief, these employees disregarded the internal operating

procedures of the Bank concerning fraud detection, prevention, and notification of the account

holder, Mrs. Edwards and, upon information and belief, failed or refused to file Suspicious

Activity Reports.

81. The Bank failed to properly supervise its employees and agents and failed to

maintain sufficient controls to prevent employee negligence.

82. These failures have caused Mrs. Edwards individually to suffer damages in an

amount of $23,210.00.

COUNT TEN: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION




84. The Bank has a duty to its customers and users of the banking system to supervise

its employees and agents properly and maintain controls to prevent employee malfeasance and

negligence.

85. Upon information and belief, employees of the Bank performed their duties

negligently by not abiding by reasonable banking practices.


18

86. Upon information and belief, these employees disregarded the internal operating

procedures of the Bank concerning fraud detection, prevention, and notification of the account

holder, the Estate and, upon information and belief, failed or refused to file Suspicious Activity

Reports.

87. The Bank failed to properly supervise its employees and agents and failed to

maintain sufficient controls to prevent employee negligence.

88. These failures have caused the Estate to suffer damages in an amount of

$48,798.87.

COUNT ELEVEN: FRAUD

(Claim by Plaintiff Mrs. Edwards as to Defendant Peterson)



90. In her employment with Mrs. Edwards, Peterson had a duty to carry out her

assignments in good faith and as instructed by Mrs. Edwards.

91. By virtue of her continued employment, Peterson represented that she performed

her tasks as instructed and otherwise handled Mrs. Edwards’ affairs in the correct and proper

manner.

92. As stated above, these representations were knowingly false, and Peterson

knowingly stole and converted funds from all three checking accounts without Mrs. Edwards’

knowledge or permission.

93. Peterson intended that Mrs. Edwards rely upon these continuing representations.

94. Mrs. Edwards reasonably relied on Peterson’s misrepresentations that she was

carrying out her duties in good faith and as instructed by Mrs. Edwards.


19

95. At all relevant times herein, Mrs. Edwards was the sole owner of the Personal

Account.

96. On multiple occasions, Peterson intentionally diverted funds from the Personal

Account to her own personal use and benefit as described above.

97. By reason of the foregoing, Peterson defrauded Mrs. Edwards who has been

damaged thereby in the amount of $23,210.00.

COUNT TWELVE: FRAUD

(Claim by Plaintiff Estate as to Defendant Peterson)



99. In her employment with Mrs. Edwards, the Executrix of the Estate, Peterson had a

duty to carry out her assignments in good faith and as instructed by Mrs. Edwards.

100. By virtue of her continued employment, Peterson represented that she performed

her tasks for the benefit of the Estate as instructed and otherwise assisted with the Estate’s and

the Executrix’s affairs in the correct and proper manner.

101. As stated above, these representations were knowingly false, and Peterson

knowingly stole and converted funds from all three checking accounts without the Executrix’s

knowledge or permission.

102. Peterson intended that the Estate rely upon these continuing representations.

103. The Estate reasonably relied on Peterson’s misrepresentations that she was

carrying out her duties in good faith and as instructed by the Executrix.

104. At all relevant times herein, the Estate was the sole owner of the Estate Account.


20

105. On multiple occasions, Peterson intentionally diverted funds from the Estate

Account to her own personal use and benefit as described above.

106. By reason of the foregoing, Peterson defrauded the Estate which has been

damaged thereby in the amount of $48,798.87.

COUNT THIRTEEN: CONVERSION




108. As demonstrated by the above-described actions, Peterson has converted funds

from the Personal Account and deprived Mrs. Peterson of her property.

109. As a direct and proximate result of Peterson’s conversion, Mrs. Edwards has been

damaged in an amount of $23,210.00.

COUNT FOURTEEN: CONVERSION




111. As demonstrated by the above-described actions, Peterson has converted funds

from the Estate Account and deprived the Estate of its property.

112. As a direct and proximate result of Peterson’s conversion, the Estate has been

damaged in an amount of $48,798.87.


21

COUNT FIFTEEN: UNJUST ENRICHMENT




114. As a result of the schemes described above, Peterson has been unjustly enriched

to the detriment of Mrs. Edwards, and Mrs. Edwards is entitled to restitution in the amount of

$23,210.00.

COUNT SIXTEEN: UNJUST ENRICHMENT




116. As a result of the schemes described above, Peterson has been unjustly enriched

to the detriment of the Estate, and the Estate is entitled to restitution in the amount of

$48,798.87.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment jointly, severally, and alternatively, against

Defendants Peapack-Gladstone Bank and Alexandria Peterson for the following:

a. compensatory damages;

b. consequential damages;

c. attorneys’ fees and costs;

d. punitive damages; and

e. such other and further relief as is just and equitable.


22

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues, pursuant to New Jersey Court

Rules 1:8-2(b) and 4:35-1(a).

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:5-1

Plaintiff hereby certifies pursuant to Rule 4:5-1 of the New Jersey Court Rules that there

are no other civil proceedings either pending or contemplated with respect to the matter in

controversy herein and no other parties who should be joined to this action. Plaintiffs further

certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted

to the court and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with

Rule 1:38-7(b).

DATED: October 18, 2018 JAMES G. MCCARNEY, ESQ. /s/ James G. McCarney . James G. McCarney, Esq. (ID # 034631982) 29 Broadway, Suite 1400 New York, New York 10006 [email protected] 212.797.1338 Of Counsel: ENGEL THORNBURGH & MCCARNEY LLP Thomas E. Engel, Esq. 152 West 57th Street, 16th Floor New York, New York 10019 [email protected] 212.546.6215 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Françoise N. Edwards


james g. mcarney esq 29 broadway, suite 1400 new york, … · edwards’ home office, were all,...

Documents