Banking Interpretations

NYSBL 105(1)

October 29, 2004

Rosanne Notaro/legal/NYSBD

Subject Re: FW: Home Office Protection

Dear [               ],

Thank you for forwarding your question again. This will confirm that it has been the position of the Banking Department that, if the boundaries of a city, village or unincorporated village that constitutes a home office protected area within the meaning of New York Banking Law section 105 are altered, for example, by legislative action and a branch of another bank (i.e. not the bank enjoying home office protection) was already located within those new city or village boundaries, it is not considered a violation of the branching restrictions in section 105 by the other bank whose branch was already within the boundaries that constitute the new city or village.

You also asked whether the bank whose principal office is within the original boundaries of the home office protected area would continue to enjoy home office protection in the newly established boundaries of the city or village (as against other new branches entering the new area). The answer to this question would depend on if the new area still met the definition of a home office protected area within section 105.

However, assuming that the new area constituted a city or village with a population of 50,000 or less within the meaning of section 105, then the bank whose principal office is within that area continues to enjoy home office protection within the newly established boundaries as well.

I trust that this is helpful.


Rosanne Notaro
First Assistant Counsel - Banks

Sent: Monday, October 04, 200411:43 AM

To: "[email protected]"

Subject: Home Office Protection

Dear Ms. Notaro,

This firm represents' [                                      ] connection with an issue which has arisen due to the pending-annexation of lands by the Village on which is located a branch bank of another institution. Although they understand that the annexation will not be considered a violation of Banking Law 10 5, our client is concerned with retaining its Home Office Protection under Banking Law 105. I understand that you have indicated that the protection will not be lost as to other branches in the future. I recently e-mailed you about this, but understand that you have been out of the office. I have recently spoken to Steve Kupfer, who suggested that I correspond with you and request that you advise us whether any assurances can be given to our client on this subject. I look forward to hearing from you, either by phone (please call collect if necessary) or by e-mail or letter. Thank you for your consideration.