Citibank Ordered to Compensate Stroke Victim

Citibank is facing a nearly $3.5 million payment obligation to an 80-year-old stroke victim from Queens after neglecting clear signs of fraud in her account and hiding evidence in a trial related to the case.

A ruling from Queens Supreme Court Justice Bernice Segal on December 19 resulted in a $10,000 penalty against the bank for “withholding material evidence for more than 14 months in violation of a court order.” The victim, Leeles Faye Graham, ironically had previously worked as a legal secretary for a firm that represented major banking institutions.

Segal’s decision was influenced by the bank’s delays in an ongoing lawsuit and its refusal to refund over $772,000 taken from Graham’s account. This led to additional legal action under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act for treble damages against Citibank.

Citibank denies any wrongdoing and is appealing the ruling. Meanwhile, Graham’s family hopes to ensure she sees the returned funds. Her niece, Ingrid Gale, expressed concern about Graham’s condition, wishing for a resolution before it’s too late. “It would be really sad if we were fighting to get her money back and she didn’t get to enjoy $1,000 of that money,” she said.

The court documents revealed that the bank failed to act when another niece allegedly withdrew large sums across state lines—$135,000 over 211 transactions—with Graham being unable to travel there due to her blindness and bedridden status.

In total, around $638,000 was lost through 15 wire transfers. Gale questioned why Citibank didn’t notice the unusual activity: “Haven’t you guys seen this? This is not normal.” A court expert later discovered that the thief used Graham’s money for personal expenses, leading the judgment against the bank.

The 1978 Electronic Funds Transfer Act aims to protect consumers against unauthorized transactions. The court found that had Citibank adhered to its security protocols, Graham’s account would have been flagged for suspicious activities, preventing further withdrawals.

Originally from Jamaica, Graham moved to the U.S. in the 1970s, earning two degrees and working in the legal field for several decades. Over time, her health deteriorated following a stroke in early 2020. Although she showed initial improvement, difficulties arose, and her living conditions became alarming when Gale visited her to find bedsores and unsanitary conditions.

After raising concerns, an investigation was triggered leading to the appointment of a legal guardian for Graham. The court’s finding emphasized that the bank ignored obvious signs during the theft while also failing to present evidence that could have expedited the case resolution.

According to Graham’s attorney, Raymond Dowd, this case marks a significant moment for financial institutions in New York by underscoring their accountability in fraudulent transactions. “The burden of proof is on the bank, not the consumer,” he stated.

Graham is entitled to recover triple the amount taken, alongside interest and damages, totaling over $1 million. Gale expressed her frustration over the situation and shared her intentions to make Graham’s life more comfortable if the funds were recovered. “But I don’t have the money for that now,” she lamented, highlighting the emotional weight of their struggle.

Citibank maintained its stance claiming it does not hold any of Graham’s funds, raising questions about the case’s procedural details. The bank has refrained from providing further comments.