Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Abacus Federal Savings Bank v. ADT Security Services, Inc.
Citation:18 N.Y.3d 675, 967 N.E.2d 666, 944 N.Y.S.2d 443
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
The Abacus Federal Savings Bank (“the bank”) (plaintiff) in Lower Manhattan contracted with ADT Security Services, Inc. (“ADT”) and Diebold Incorporated (“Diebold”) (defendants) for the latter to supply security services, including a 24-hour security system to protect the bank premises and its vault. Also, ADT and Diebold were to install detectors to identify intruder movement inside the vault, as well as a back-up alarm system. Following the close of business on a Saturday, burglars broke into the bank. Once inside the vault, the burglars gained access to a safe storing the bank’s overnight cash and various safe deposit boxes belonging to bank customers. The burglars stole $589,749.55 in cash and $926,512 from the safe deposit boxes. The police were not notified during the course of the burglary. Instead, an Abacus employee discovered the missing cash when the bank opened for business on Monday morning. In addition to the losses incurred during the burglary, Abacus sued ADT and Diebold for money damages for lost business as a result of the burglary, for loss of reputation in the community, for the costs to repair the vault, and for added security costs.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.