Pete Ragone is Managing Partner in MKCI’s New York City office. His practice primarily involves commercial litigation via representation of major banks, lending institutions and insurance companies. In his representation of banks and lending institutions, Pete handles general banking litigation, including, among others, cases under U.C.C. Articles 3, 4, 4-A and 9, NACHA lender liability litigation, predatory lending, TILA, FDCPA, commercial recovery litigation, debt restructuring and other practice areas. He focuses on the representation of insurers and sureties in handling complex insurance coverage claims, analysis and litigation, including in the context of fidelity insurance, financial institution bonds, commercial crime policies, miscellaneous surety and blanket bonds, property insurance and first-party property insurance policies.
Pete has been designated by a top five national bank as special counsel in New York and New Jersey to handle unusual cases stemming from the enforcement of levies, garnishments, subpoenas and other legal process. He has also represented bank clients in cases involving ponzi schemes (including Madoff related and similar litigations), check and wire transfer fraud, check kiting schemes, financial frauds and in a number of other scenarios.
Apart from his experience in the banking and insurance fields, Pete has successfully litigated in other commercial contexts, including bankruptcy preference and automatic stay litigation, breach of contract cases and other areas. He also acts as counsel in various Federal Court cases involving the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”).
Some significant cases handled by Pete in the banking and insurance industry include:
- McCarthy v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 759 F. Supp. 2d 265 (E.D.N.Y.2011), where the court awarded summary judgment and dismissed a putative class action case against the defendant bank. The ruling in McCarthy is significant in limiting the potential exposure faced by banks to creditors and depositors for honoring garnishments, restraining notices and levies across state lines and in foreign jurisdictions.
- Idone v. Pioneer Savings and Loan Association, 159 A.D.2d 560, 552 N.Y.S.2d 424 (2nd Dept. 1990), a case of first impression in which Pete successfully argued before the Appellate Division, Second Department, that a national burglar alarm service company could not limit its liability to its bank customer for its grossly negligent acts in the context of a massive safe deposit box burglary.
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bajana, 228 A.D.3d 526, 211 N.Y.S.3d 384 (1st Dept. 2024), in which the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed a ruling made by the Supreme Court, Bronx County and dismissed the defendant/borrowers’ counterclaims and affirmative defenses, including an affirmative defense premised on N.Y. RPAPL 1301 (codifying New York’s “election of remedies” rule), and entered judgment in favor of the bank.
- Manhattan Medical Diagnostic & Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Wachovia National Bank, N.A., 49 A.D.3d 461, 857 N.Y.S.2d 55 (1st Dept. 2008), in which Pete successfully defended the plaintiff’s claims before the Appellate Division, First Department that the bank had failed to act in a commercially reasonable manner in allowing a third-party to open a commercial checking account in the plaintiff’s name, which the plaintiff claimed facilitated the conversion of its checks.
- Doural v. Bank of New York, 2005 WL 408050 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), in which Pete and his colleague John Foudy obtained summary judgment dismissing various claims and causes of action against the defendant bank for violations of the Truth-in-Lending-Act, Regulation Z, N.Y. General Business Law Deceptive Practices Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allegedly arising from the origination of mortgage loans.
- Morgan, Olmstead Kennedy & Gardner Incorporated, 637 F. Supp. 973 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), in which Pete obtained summary judgment in favor of an insurer dismissing a multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by a national securities broker dealer, where the Court agreed the broker dealer’s enhanced commissions, salary and other financial emoluments did not constitute an “improper personal financial gain” as required for coverage to lie under a fidelity bond for the alleged dishonest acts of the broker employee.
- Prince Check Cashing Corp. v. Federal Insurance Company, 182 A.D.2d 750, 582 N.Y.S.2d 751 (2nd Dept. 1992), in which Pete obtained an affirmance of a summary judgment dismissal of the insured’s lawsuit to recover damages due to a safe burglary at its premises before the Appellate Division, Second Department. He successfully argued the insurance policy at issue did not provide coverage for the loss in the absence of visible marks of forced entry to the interior or exterior of plaintiff’s safe.
- Zarour v. Pac. Indem. Co., No. 23-1103-CV, 2024 WL 3289423 (2d Cir. July 3, 2024), in which the Second Circuit affirmed a judgment rendered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York upholding a contested appraisal award and dismissing the plaintiffs’/insureds’ case against an insurance company. Pete and John Foudy successfully argued that the plaintiffs/insureds provided no evidence to support their claim that the contested appraisal award was the result of fraud, bias, or bad faith.
