Judiciary Law §487, perhaps the oldest rule (it’s the common law, not a statute) comes up  in Unclaimed Prop. Recovery Serv., Inc. v Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 30150(U)  January 25, 2018  Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653009/2013 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla, but then it disappears.  This is a contract action between an entity that seeks to recover unclaimed property which may belong to a bank, and Credit Suisse.

“Plaintiffs Unclaimed Property Recovery Service, Inc. (UPRS) and Bernard Gelb (Gelb), UPRS’s vice-president and general manager, bring this breach of contract action against defendants Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (collectively, Credit Suisse), alleging that Credit Suisse has refused to execute contractually required documents that would enable plaintiffs to recover unclaimed property held in Credit Suisse’s name by the N~w York State Office of Unclaimed Funds (NYS OUF).

Credit Suisse moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs crossmove for summary judgment and an order, pursuant to CPLR 3126, Judiciary Law§ 487 and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, imposing sanctions against Credit Suisse. ”

After a discussion of whether the agreement was limited to 2005 assets or applied to after-discovered assets, the Court determines:  “For the foregoing reasons, Credit Suisse has demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, and plaintiffs have failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Plaintiffs argue that Credit Suisse is attempting to recover the unclaimed property on its own and through newly hired professionals (see Gelb aff,  20, exhibits 1, 2, 6), but this evidence is irrelevant because it is not the basis of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. See complaint,77-80 (alleging that Credit Suisse breached the 2005 Settlement Agreement by
refusing to cooperate and execute necessary documents). ”