Obligations by installing woefully inadequate security systems, which they failed to inspect. The gravamen of Abacus' amended complaint is that defendants violated their contractual Diebold's contract with Abacus required Diebold to provide a backup alarm system that included additional central station monitoring, another form of telephone line security and “signal monitoring,” which would activate an alarm if ADT's alarm system failed to operate properly ADT's security system was supposedly designed to transmit any alarm signals triggered in the vault to ADT's central monitoring system. Within the vault, ADT purported to utilize certain detectors that would identify intruder movement and the presence of smoke. Specifically, ADT's contract with Abacus obligated ADT to install and maintain a 24–hour industry-certified central station security system to protect the branch premises and the vault. Prior to the burglary, each defendant had separately contracted with Abacus to, supply security services for the branch. Rather, an Abacus employee discovered what had occurred when the branch opened for business on Monday morning, March 22, 2004. The police were not notified during the course of the burglary. The amended complaint alleges that the burglars stole $589,749.55 in cash from the safe and property valued at $926,512 from the safe deposit boxes. Once in the vault, the burglars gained access to a safe storing the branch's overnight cash and over 20 safe deposit boxes belonging to Abacus' customers. According to security camera images taken during the course of the incident, the burglars located the vault inside and, during a several hour period, used large acetylene gas tanks as blow torches to break down one of the vault's concrete and metal walls. Following the close of business on Saturday, March 20, 2004, burglars forced their way into the branch through a back entrance door and a second interior door. It provides a variety of deposit services, including the leasing of safe deposit boxes to its customers. We conclude that Abacus has adequately stated a cause of action for breach of contract as against ADT for its alleged losses other than losses allegedly sustained by its safe deposit box customers.Ībacus is a federally chartered savings and loan association with a branch located in Lower Manhattan (the branch). We affirm the dismissal of the complaint with one exception. (ADT) and Diebold, Incorporated (Diebold) to recover damages under tort and contract theories for losses incurred during a burglary of the bank. Plaintiff Abacus Federal Savings Bank (Abacus) commenced this action against defendants ADT Security Services, Inc. Rothman of counsel), for Diebold, Incorporated, respondent. Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York City (Dennis M. Eblen, of the Missouri bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel) and Calinoff & Katz, LLP, New York City, for ADT Security Services, Inc., respondent. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |