Skip to content


Trustco bank schenectady

trustco bank schenectady

TrustCo Bank Upper Union Street is open Monday to Saturday and closed on Sundays. The branch opens at 9:00am in the morning. Working hours for Upper Union. Trustco Bank has been the low cost provider of high quality products and services since opening for business in 1902 in the upstate town of Schenectady. 3 reviews of Trustco Bank "While the employees at this location have usually been helpful, Trustco bank is an absolutely horrible bank, and many of their.
trustco bank schenectady



TrustCo Bank Upper Union Street branch is one of the 148 offices of the bank and has been serving the financial needs of their customers in Schenectady, Schenectady county, New York since 1946. Upper Union Street office is located at 1620 Union Street, Schenectady. You can also contact trustco bank schenectady bank by calling the branch phone number at 518-374-4056

TrustCo Bank Upper Union Street branch operates as a full service brick and mortar office. For lobby hours, drive-up hours and online banking services please visit the official website of the bank at You can edit branch details by clicking here if you believe the information is incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading.


  • ■ Monday:9:00am - 5:00pm

  • ■ Tuesday:9:00am - 3:00pm

  • ■ Wednesday:9:00am - 5:00pm

  • ■ Thursday:9:00am - 6:00pm

  • ■ Friday:9:00am - 6:00pm

  • ■ Saturday:9:00am - 1:00pm

  • ■ Sunday:Closed

TrustCo Bank Upper Union Street is open Monday to Saturday and closed on Sundays. The branch opens at 9:00am in the how to activate walmart prepaid debit card. Working hours for Upper Union Street branch are listed on the table above. Note that this data is based on regular opening and closing hours of TrustCo Bank and may also be subject to changes. Please call the branch at 518-374-4056 to verify hours before visiting.


  • Bank Name:TrustCo Bank

  • Bank Type:Savings & Loan Association

  • FDIC Insurance:Certificate #31945

  • Routing Number:N/A

  • Online

  • Branch Count:148 Offices in 5 states


Trustco Bank v Pearl Mont Commons, LLC

[*1] Trustco Bank v Pearl Mont Commons, LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 26451 Decided on December 29, 2016 Supreme Court, Schenectady County Buchanan, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 29, 2016
Supreme Court, Schenectady County

Trustco Bank, Plaintiff, vs.


Pearl Mont Commons, LLC and GERALYNN LYNN, Defendants.



For Defendant:

Geralynn Lynn, Pro Se

Pomona, New York

For Plaintiff:

McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P.C.

By: Peter A. Pastore, Esq.

Albany, New York
Thomas D. Buchanan, J.

In this action, Trustco bank schenectady seeks several forms of relief, which include setting aside certain transfers of assets from defendant Pearl Mont Commons, LLC ("Pearl Mont") to defendant Geralynn Lynn. Plaintiff brought this action as judgment creditor pursuant to two judgments previously entered against Highgate Development Corp., Lynn Homes, Inc., and John W. Lynn. The two corporate entities owned certain real property on which Plaintiff held mortgages to secure commercial loans made to them by Plaintiff for construction of a housing development. John Lynn personally guarantied those loans. Plaintiff sued both corporations and Mr. Lynn on the notes, and seeks to collect on that judgment debt in this action. Mr. Lynn is either the sole owner or a co-owner of Pearl Mont. Plaintiff alleges that certain Pearl Mont assets were transferred to defendant Geralynn Lynn (the wife trustco bank schenectady John Lynn) fraudulently, as that term is used in the Debtor and Creditor Law. While the composition of Pearl Mont's ownership has been one of the issues litigated in this action, resolution of that question is not necessary to address the [*2]motion at hand.

Defendant Geralynn Lynn ("Defendant") has moved for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint as against her on four stated grounds: (1) Plaintiff failed to deliver an execution to the Rockland County Sheriff on its judgments against John Lynn, so that there is no lien upon the assets it seeks to obtain; (2) the preliminary injunction granted in this case on February 21, 2013, was based on erroneous facts; (3) the re-issuance of the preliminary injunction on December 9, 2013, was based on erroneous facts; and (4) circumstances have changed, in that Plaintiff has now taken possession of the real property that served as collateral for the loans at issue and sold it to a amazon app 10 promotional credit party. Plaintiff has opposed the motion. At oral argument, the Court requested additional briefing, which both parties have submitted.

Defendant bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting sufficient evidence to show that no material issues of fact exist (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). If she makes the requisite showing, the burden of proof then shifts to Plaintiff to show the presence of questions of fact requiring trial (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). The facts must be construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party (see e.g. Hanna v. St. Lawrence County, 34 AD3d 1146 [3d Dept 2006]).

A. Defendant's Arguments

1. Delivery of Execution to Sheriff. In advancing her first argument, Defendant appears to mis-read CPLR §5202(a) to require issuance of an execution to the sheriff of the appropriate county prior to any enforcement action on a judgment. An execution is one of several enforcement devices made available by Article 52 of the CPLR to a party holding a judgment against another. A careful reading of CPLR §5202 shows that the statute is meant to establish the priority of liens created by the various enforcement devices. The case cited by Defendant (Matter of Intl. Ribbon Mills [Arjan Ribbons], 36 NY2d 121 [1975]) is simply an adjudication of priority among creditors using this statute. While it is true that the case at bar is about priority between Plaintiff and Defendant as to the ownership of personal property that once belonged to Pearl Mont, Plaintiff does not rely on its status as an "execution creditor" of John Lynn in making its claims.

The first two causes of action seek a judgment against Pearl Mont based on Plaintiff's allegation that Pearl Mont is the alter ego of John Lynn. The next three causes of action are based on the Debtor and Creditor Law, each alleging that certain transfers were made from Pearl Mont to Defendant that should be disregarded in the eyes of the law, because they operated fraudulently to deprive Plaintiff of its ability to obtain those funds and apply them toward satisfaction of its judgment against John Lynn. The final cause of action seeks collection costs and attorney's fees in the event that actual intent to defraud, hinder or delay Plaintiff's collection efforts is found. While all of these claims rely upon the existence of Plaintiff's judgments against John Lynn, none of them require an execution lien upon personal property. Section 5202(a) thus has no application here and Defendant cannot make her prima facie showing on the first ground she asserts.

2. & 3. Propriety of Preliminary Injunction. Early in this action, Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order which, among other things, prohibited Pearl Mont from making any transfers of funds or tangible assets to Defendant and prohibited Defendant from accessing Pearl [*3]Mont bank accounts and credit cards. The temporary restraining order was converted to a preliminary cit bank reviews on February 21, 2013. At that time, the Court was unaware of the fact that John Lynn had filed a petition in Bankruptcy How to activate walmart prepaid debit card in 2012. In an Order issued on October 23, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that Plaintiff's pursuit of the case at bar had violated the statutory automatic stay of collection efforts against John Lynn resulting from his bankruptcy filing, and that the preliminary injunction was therefore void. The preliminary injunction was re-issued on December 9, 2013, after Plaintiff informed the Court that Mr. Lynn's bankruptcy proceeding — and thus the automatic stay — had terminated.

The injunctive relief afforded to Plaintiff was based on two main factors. First, Lynn Homes had also filed a petition in Bankruptcy Court, which raised the statutory automatic stay of any actions to collect debts from Lynn Homes and thus prevented Plaintiff from foreclosing its mortgage on most of the subject property. Second, the housing development being constructed with the loan proceeds had floundered due to significant problems in securing required permits and did not appear to be a viable project. As this Court stated in its Decision and Order of February 21, 2013, it appeared from the record developed by Plaintiff that it would be "impracticable, if not impossible, for Plaintiff to realize meaningful reduction in the debt" by pursuing foreclosure. John Lynn's interest in Pearl Mont appeared to be the only viable source for Plaintiff to collect the judgment debt, which required its preservation pending the outcome of this case.

Defendant argues that the injunction was improperly issued and re-issued because certain facts were not placed before the Court by Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant points out that on January 16, 2013, just prior to Plaintiff's initial application for an injunction in this case, Plaintiff had obtained an order from the Bankruptcy Court lifting the automatic stay in the Lynn Homes bankruptcy, which would allow Plaintiff to proceed with the foreclosure of its mortgages. That fact was not mentioned in Plaintiff's application papers. The removal of that impediment to Plaintiff's ability to foreclose on its mortgages also removed the first basis for the injunction. Moreover, Plaintiff's motion to lift the bankruptcy stay indicates that Plaintiff was already planning to pursue foreclosure, which could have undermined its argument that such an action would be largely fruitless.

As a general matter, Defendant may have a colorable argument that the preliminary injunction was improperly issued; if not initially, then certainly when it was re-issued in December of 2013. However, Defendant's argument is misplaced in the context of her summary judgment motion. While Plaintiff was required to show a likelihood of success on its claims when applying for the injunction here, the CPLR specifically provides that the presence of unresolved issues of fact does not prohibit issuance of an injunction (CPLR 6312). A preliminary injunction has the function of preserving the status quo in order to prevent further perpetration of an alleged wrong while a case is pending (see e.g., Matter of Elmore v. Mills, 296 AD2d 704 [3d Dept 2002]). The ultimate proof offered at trial determines amazon synchrony credit card customer service validity of the plaintiff's claims, not the presence of an injunction. In this case, the alleged wrong was dissipation of the assets of Pearl Mont through their fraudulent conveyance to Defendant. The injunction was intended to prevent further transfer of assets while the validity of Plaintiff's claims was litigated. An improperly-issued injunction would not, by itself, merit dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. Therefore, Defendant cannot make her prima facie showing of entitlement to a judgment [*4]on either the second or third grounds for her motion.

4. Foreclosure. The fourth ground for Defendant's motion is that Plaintiff has, in the time since this action was commenced, pursued an action to foreclose its mortgage liens on the properties that served as collateral for the Lynn Homes/Highgate debt that was guarantied by John Lynn. That foreclosure action proceeded to judgment. The foreclosure sale was held, at which Plaintiff purchased the subject property, and Plaintiff then re-sold the property to a third party. Defendant argues that "Trustco has received its bargained for collateral." Defendant has perhaps stated her argument inartistically by mixing it with her attack on the preliminary injunction, but she makes one point clearly. Defendant believes that, having obtained the collateral for the loan, Plaintiff should be satisfied. In the view of this Court, Defendant's fourth argument raises the issue of election of remedies.

B. Election of Remedies and RPAPL §1371

Defendant did not use the term "election of remedies" specifically in her motion papers and Plaintiff did not address it in opposition, which is why the Court asked for additional briefing on the issue. Contrary to Plaintiff's characterization in its supplemental papers, however, this is not an issue that trustco bank schenectady Court raised sua sponte. Werder bremen vs fc bayern live stream is an argument that has been raised unsuccessfully in several forms by Defendant and by Pearl Mont throughout this case. Indeed, Plaintiff's counsel notes this fact in Plaintiff's initial responding papers on this motion. What has changed significantly is the backdrop against which the argument is made, in that Plaintiff has now completed a foreclosure action and has sold the property. Those facts were unknown to the Court prior to Defendant raising them on this motion. Summary judgment "searches the record" and can result in an award of judgment to a party that did not seek it (see e.g. Perkins v. Kapsokefalos, 57 AD3d 1189 [3d Dept 2008]). Because election of remedies is presented as an issue on this record, it should be addressed.

1. Statutory Provisions. The Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law contains an election-of-remedies rule in RPAPL §1301:

1. Where final judgment for the plaintiff has been rendered in an action to recover any part of the mortgage debt, an action shall not be commenced or maintained to foreclose the mortgage, unless an execution against the property of the defendant has been issued upon the judgment to the sheriff of the county where he resides, if he resides within the state, or if he resides without the state, to the sheriff of the county where the judgment-roll is filed; and has been returned wholly or partly unsatisfied.2. The complaint shall state whether any www alsat m tv seriale action has been brought to recover any part of the mortgage debt, and, if so, whether any part has been collected.3. While the action is pending or after final judgment for the plaintiff therein, no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.

This provision is the current version of that found in the former Civil Practice Act at §1078, which was enacted expressly to restrict the common-law rule allowing the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action to seek alternative forms of relief (see First Natl. Bank & Trust Co. of Walton v. Eisenrod, 263 App Div 227 [3d Dept 1942]). The effect of §1301 is the same as that of the former statute. A foreclosure plaintiff "may proceed at law to recover on the note or proceed in equity to foreclose on the mortgage, but must only elect one of these alternate remedies" (Gizzi v. [*5]Hall, 309 AD2d 1140, 1141 [3d Dept 2003]).

A corollary to this rule is found in RPAPL §1371, which sets out the procedures for obtaining a deficiency judgment. In particular, §1371(3) provides:

3. If no motion for a deficiency judgment shall be made as herein prescribed the proceeds of the sale regardless of amount shall be deemed to be in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt and no right to recover any deficiency in any action or proceeding shall exist.

Case law tracing the legislative history of §1371 shows that the additional burden it places on mortgagees was intentional. While its original intent was to remedy a practice whereby lenders made artificially low bids at foreclosure sales and then took inflated deficiency judgments against mortgagors, the statutory language is nonetheless direct and retains its validity (see e.g. Sanders v. Palmer, 68 NY2d 180, 185-86 [1986]; Merchants Natl. Bank & Trust Co. of Syracuse v. Wagner, (93 Misc 2d 224, 226-28 [Sup Ct, Oswego County 1978]).

On the face of the statutory provisions quoted above, there are clear requirements of a mortgage usps office open today in a foreclosure case. If a mortgagee elects to proceed against a defaulting mortgagor by suing on the note, then no foreclosure action may be commenced unless the mortgagee is fully or partially unsuccessful in collecting the judgment on the note. If the mortgagee elects to proceed with a foreclosure, then no action may be commenced on the note without leave of the court in the foreclosure action. If the mortgagee does not bring a deficiency judgment application in the foreclosure action, then the proceeds of the foreclosure sale are deemed to be in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt.

The application of §1371(3) is the heart of the issue framed by the facts in this case. Plaintiff argues that §1371 does not apply here because Plaintiff is not seeking a deficiency judgment. In making this argument, Plaintiff focuses on the last phrase of §1371(3), "no right to recover any deficiency in any action or proceeding trustco bank schenectady exist." Plaintiff argues that the damages being sought in this action are entirely separate from the mortgage foreclosure, and because of that, neither of the defendants here is a "protected person" under §1371. However, Plaintiff ignores the language preceding the quote on which it focuses. Because the mortgage debt is deemed fully satisfied, the words "any deficiency" and "any action" have a much broader meaning than the one which Plaintiff seeks to ascribe to them. As this Court pointed out at oral argument, the opinion in TBS Enterprises, Inc. v. Grobe (114 AD2d 445 [2d Dept 1985]) holds that when the mortgage debt is deemed satisfied, so also is the liability of the guarantor of that debt. This is an application of what has long been held to be "the elementary principal of the law of suretyship, that the payment or satisfaction of the principal obligation discharges the guarantor" (Union Trust Co. of Rochester v. Willsea, 275 NY 164,166 [1937]). Because the judgments obtained by Plaintiff against John Lynn as the guarantor of the mortgage loans at issue form the basis for this action, satisfaction of the mortgage trustco bank schenectady would appear to remove the foundation for Plaintiff's claims here.

2. Case Law. Plaintiff seeks to distinguish the TBS case by noting the different time line involved. The plaintiff in TBS first foreclosed on the mortgaged property and then sought to bring an action against a guarantor of the note. In this case, Plaintiff first brought an action to recover on the note and on a personal guaranty, obtaining judgment against both of the debtors and the guarantor. Plaintiff notes correctly that the particular fact situation here appears to be one of first impression. The Court has spent considerable time researching the issue, but has [*6]found no case authority specifically addressing this particular chain of events. There are reported decisions, however, specifically applying the "full satisfaction" language of §1371 and its predecessor, Civil Practice Act §1083. In these cases, foreclosure plaintiffs who failed to move for a deficiency judgment were held to be unable to pursue a variety of other remedies. The list below is not exhaustive, but it is representative of a consistent theme.

Proceeding in chronological order, in Rossbach v. Rosenblum (260 App Div 206 [1st Dept 1940]), the court held that a money judgment for delinquent property taxes and interest (obtained prior to the foreclosure sale pursuant to causes of action in the same complaint as the foreclosure) was not enforceable. In Pomperaug Realty Corp. v. Schulte Real Estate Co., Inc. (182 Misc 1080 [Sup Ct, NY County 1944]), the plaintiff was precluded from us bank loan officer the return of other collateral sold by the mortgagor after the foreclosure sale. In Band Realty Co. v. North Brewster, Inc. (59 AD2d 770 [2d Dept 1977]), the plaintiff was precluded from recovering for waste allegedly committed on the property during an appeal from the foreclosure judgment. In Merchants Natl. Bank & Trust Co. of Syracuse v. Wagner (supra), the plaintiff was precluded from foreclosing on a mortgage given by a guarantor of the main mortgage. In the TBS case discussed above, the plaintiff was precluded from pursuing an action at law on a personal guaranty of the mortgage debt. In what is perhaps the closest factual parallel to the case at bar, Mariani v. J.K.I.F. Management, Inc. (158 Misc 2d 938 [Sup Ct, NY County 1993]), the plaintiff was precluded from proceeding to enforce a judgment by confession given by a guarantor as further collateral for the mortgage debt. The rationale for the holdings in all of these cases was that the mortgage debt was deemed fully satisfied, so that there was nothing left for the mortgagee to pursue.

The Court's research has also revealed cases where the rule of §1371(3) has not been applied to preclude further action by a mortgagee. Again proceeding chronologically, in Roseview Farms, Inc. v. Pfister (198 AD2d 339 [2d Dept 1993]), the parties had specifically agreed as to the order and timing of the sale of several properties securing the debt and a guaranty, so that the defendant was held to be estopped from asserting §1371 after the first of those sales. In Bank Leumi Trust Co. of New York v. Andrews (254 AD2d 445 [2d Dept 1998]), the mortgage at issue provided that it secured only a specified part of the debt and the mortgagee received a full recovery of that amount through the foreclosure process, so that there was no deficiency. In Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (48 AD3d 554 [2d Dept 2008]), the mortgagee was enjoined by the specific terms of the defendant's bankruptcy discharge from pursuing a deficiency judgment. In Hometown Bank of Hudson Valley v. Colucci (127 AD3d 702 [2d Dept 2015]), a foreclosure action was brought to foreclose mortgages securing three loans comprising the financing package for a residential subdivision. By stipulation, the action was discontinued "without prejudice" as to one of the mortgage loans. The lender was later allowed to maintain an action against the guarantor of that loan. In each of these cases, the particular factual setting either prevented or obviated the application of §1371.

The record here, however, does not reveal a similar factual situation that would render §1371 inapplicable. By Plaintiff's own description, the foreclosure of its mortgage on the properties at issue followed the normal course and resulted in a foreclosure sale. There is nothing in the record here to indicate that the foreclosure action brought by Plaintiff did not encompass the loan guarantied by John Lynn. There is no agreement in the record between [*7]Plaintiff and any of the parties to the mortgage transaction that would prevent Defendant from asserting §1371.

Plaintiff has cited the Washington Mutual Bank v. Allstate Insurance case for the proposition that John Lynn's bankruptcy filing prevented Plaintiff from pursuing a deficiency judgment. The record shows, however, that Plaintiff was not precluded by either the Bankruptcy Code or a bankruptcy decree from applying for a deficiency judgment. While Lynn Homes and John Lynn each filed bankruptcy petitions, Highgate Development did not, leaving a defendant that would have been legally subject to a deficiency judgment. It is worth noting that the Washington Mutual opinion points out terapia ocupacional ubu, absent the bankruptcy court's directives, the operation of §1371 to deem the mortgage debt satisfied would have extinguished any insurable interest held by the mortgagee (Washington Mutual v. Allstate, 48 AD3d at 554) — a point that is consistent with the line of cases applying §1371 cited above by this Court.

Nor does the fact that Plaintiff's judgments pre-date the foreclosure action preclude application of §1371(3). Events occurring after the docketing of a judgment can affect the vitality of that judgment. For example, Plaintiff freely concedes that John Lynn's receipt of a bankruptcy discharge precludes collection efforts against him personally. Judgments can also lose their res judicata or collateral estoppel effect (see e.g. Citizens of Accord, Inc. v. Twin Tracks Promotions, Inc., 236 AD2d 665 [3d Dept 1997]; Hoopes v. Bruno, 128 AD2d 991 [3d Dept. 1987]). From this Court's research, it appears that §1371(3) operates in much the same way that satisfaction of a judgment by one tort-feasor operates to discharge the liability of all joint tort-feasors (see Matter of Benedictine Hosp. v. Glessing, 90 AD3d 1383 [3d Dept 2011]). The satisfaction of the mortgage debt effectively eviscerated the judgments against John Lynn on which this action is based.

3. Practicalities. Perhaps Plaintiff's most compelling argument is that it would have been illogical and pointless to trustco bank schenectady a deficiency judgment against Highgate for two reasons: (1) Plaintiff already had a judgment against Highgate and (2) Highgate had no assets "other than partially completed roads that had been foreclosed on." There is logic to this argument. Why pursue what appears to be a duplicate judgment against a defendant that has no money? Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the answer is straightforward. The Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law says that a foreclosing mortgagee must do so.

In sum, under RPAPL §1371(3), the consequence of failure to seek a deficiency judgment is the elimination of any further claim by the mortgagee. In this case, that rule yields a result which the Court freely acknowledges to be harsh. Plaintiff will forego damages in excess of $1 million. The statute, however, is clear. The Court sees no ambiguity on the face of §1371 and none has been revealed by reading case law applying the statute. Nor is there anything in the record to prevent its application here. The Court is therefore bound to apply the statute as written, which means that Plaintiff's failure to obtain a deficiency judgment in its foreclosure proceeding against the subject property resulted in the mortgage debt being deemed fully satisfied by the foreclosure sale. Therefore, the guaranty given by John Lynn was also satisfied, eviscerating Plaintiff's judgment against him and leaving no obligation remaining to serve as a foundation for Plaintiff's claims here. This action must be dismissed.

The parties' remaining contentions have been considered, but do not alter the outcome of this motion. Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the Complaint in this action is hereby DISMISSED as against all defendants.




Thomas D. Buchanan

Supreme Court Justice

Papers Considered:

Notice of Motion; Affidavit of defendant Geralynn Lynn, with annexed exhibits; Defendant's Memorandum of Law; Affirmation of Peter A. Pastore, Esq., with annexed exhibits; Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law; Reply Affidavit of Geralynn Lynn; Reply Memorandum of Law; Supplemental Affirmation of Peter A. Pastore, Esq., with annexed exhibits; Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum of Law; Supplemental Affidavit of Geralynn Lynn; Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum of Law


Trustco Bank markets itself as a low cost provider of high quality banking services and products. This commercial bank is currently headquartered in Glenville, NY.

Trustco currently serves its customers through 145 banking locations. 51 of these are located in the state of Florida. The other branches are located in:

  • New York
  • Massachusetts
  • Vermont
  • New Jersey

By the end of 2013, the bank’s assets were valued at $4.6 billion. The bank has a reputation of always paying its shareholders dividends for more than the skeleton key in hindi download consecutive years. The bank has always been profitable. Its stocks are currently traded on the NASDAQ.

History of Trustco Bank

  • 1902 – The predecessor of Trustco Bank was established. Schenectady Trust Company was formed following the purchase of Schenectady Bank’s assets. The company had 11 employees and $762,578.11 in deposits. By the end of the first year, the deposits had increased to $1.5 million.
  • 1912 – The success of General Electric meant that business in Schenectady was good. In 1919, the company put up the building now serving as its main branch office. It’s located at 320 State Street. The bank’s assets at the end of 1912 were valued at $4.5 million.
  • 1920s – At the end of 1922, the bank’s assets were valued at $12.1 million. Trustco bank schenectady bank opened its 2nd and 3rd branches later in the decade and helped to spur the building boom by providing mortgages.
  • 1930s – The bank’s assets were valued at $16.7 million in 1932. This was the depression era by the company still continued to pay dividends to its shareholders.
  • 1940s – In 1942, the bank’s city bank lubbock texas phone number stood at $34.9 million. The bank started modernizing its main branch and set plans in place to provide car loans as cars became increasingly common.
  • 1950s – The bank had $74.2 million in assets at the end of 1952. In the decade that followed, the bank started to expand into suburbs.
  • 1960s – The bank opened more branches as it continued to grow its assets
  • 1970s – The bank’s main office was renovated and bought additional properties
  • 1980s – In 1982, the bank’s assets were valued at $301.4 million and the company had a market cap of $17 million. In the same year, TrustCo Bank Corp NY was formed
  • 1990s – By the end of 1995, TrustCo had assets valued at $2.1 billion

TrustCo Bank Headquarters

The headquarters of TrustCo Bank are located at 1 Sarnowski Drive in the town of Glenville in New York State.

The building is a single-story office building that sits on an 8.6-acre lot. Construction of the building was completed in 1990. The building has 13,295 square feet of space inside. 1 Sarnowski Drive is located in the neighborhood of East Glenville.

The Future of TrustCo Bank

TrustCo Bank has been growing significantly in recent decades. In the decade before 2012, the bank had opened up 76 new branches. The bank already has a major presence in Florida despite having entered the market only as recently as 2003.

It can be expected that the bank will continue to grow in size and assets in the near future if the recent expansion continues.

Trustco Bank Headquarters Address

1 Sarnowski Dr, Schenectady, NY 12302, USA

Trustco Bank headquarters address

Check & protect your credit with Identity IQ.

Learn More

Monitor your credit score without hard inquiries!

Learn More


TrustCo Bank

This article is about the bank in the United States. For the microfinancing institution in Namibia, see Trustco Bank Namibia.

TrustCo Bank logo.png

Traded as

Nasdaq: TRST
S&P 600 Component
FoundedUpstate New York, (1902)

Glenville, New York


United States

Number of locations

148 Branches:
• 88 New York
• 53 Florida
• 4 Massachusetts
• 2 New Jersey
• 1 Vermont

Area served

New York, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Vermont

Key people

Robert J. McCormick, President, Chief Executive Officer
Robert T. Cushing, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
Scot R. Salvador, Executive Vice President, Chief Banking Officer
Eric W. Schreck, Senior Vice President, Florida Regional President
ProductsFinancial services

Personal Financial Services:
• 1st Mortgage
• Home Equity Loans
• Home Equity Best crime movies on amazon prime of Credit
Credit Cards

Commercial Financial Services:
Loan Alternatives
Employee Benefits
Overdraft Protection

Net income

$28.12 million USD (2009)
WebsiteOfficial website

Trustco Bank (abbreviation of TrustCo Bank Corp. NY) is a commercial bank within the United States. Trustco was founded in Schenectady, New York in 1902 and is headquartered in Glenville, New York. Trustco has 145 branches spread among New York, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont. Trustco Bank is an Equal Housing Lender and an Insured member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The company operates under the slogan, "Your Home Town Bank."


The bank provides general commercial banking services to individuals, partnerships, corporations and governments of New York, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Vermont. The Group provides commercial, construction, residential mortgage, home equity lines of credit and installment loans. It also accepts demand, savings, checking accounts, money market accounts and certificates of deposit from customers. Its commercial lending activities are focused on balancing the Company's commitment to meeting the credit needs of businesses in its market area with the necessity of managing its credit risk. Trustco Bank is a portfolio lender, which means it does not sell or trade any loans. Trustco Bank offers first and second mortgages, and has a full service commercial lending department. Recently,[when?] Trustco has added an electronic version of the monthly statement with images available online and free online banking via their internet site.

Recently[when?] added to their list of services are interest-bearing checking and free business checking, each having their own set of perks such as free checks and no minimum balances.

During 2007, 16 new branches were added. The Group operates 108 automatic teller machines and 107 banking offices in Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Rockland, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Warren, Washington and Westchester.

In 2002, Trustco Bank branched out to central Florida, the first Florida branch having opened its doors in 2003 to customers in the Orlando area. They now[when?] have 51 branches in Florida in Brevard, Hillsborough, Lake, Manatee, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Sarasota, Seminole and Volusia counties.


Purchase of Schenectady Bank and General Electric[edit]

On February 17, 1902, the first trust company was chartered in Schenectady, formed through the purchase of the assets of the Schenectady Bank (c. 1832). As the credit union for General Electric Corporation, Schenectady Trust Company opened for business on June 9, 1902, with 11 employees, and initial deposits of $762,578.11[citation needed]. The original buildings resided at 320 and 318 State Street in downtown Schenectady, New York. Charles P. Steinmetz (the “Electrical Wizard”) of General Electric and Union College fame was a major depositor and Samuel M. Hamill of General Electric became the first President of the Schenectady Trust Company. Total deposits at the end of the bank's first year were over $1.5 million.

Schenectady Trust Company[edit]

By 1912, business in Schenectady, especially General Electric, was booming. As many new businesses emerged at a rapid rate, many of them received their earliest financing from Schenectady Trust Company. In 1919 Schenectady Trust Company built the structure that is now known as the Main Trustco Bank branch office at 320 State Street. Gerardus Smith was president of the bank at the close of 1912, and total assets were $4.5 million.

The Roaring Twenties[edit]

The Mont Pleasant branch office opened in 1924. In 1925, Proctor's Theatre, Erie Boulevard and the Western Gateway Bridge opened more culture, tourism and commerce to Schenectady. The third branch, the Brandywine office, was opened in 1928. In the late twenties Schenectady's building boom took place and Schenectady Trust provided mortgage loans. At the close of 1922, H.B. Boardman was President of the Bank, and total assets were bank of america checking account million.

The Depression and World War II[edit]

Even though the thirties saw the economy come to a virtual standstill, Schenectady Trust continued to pay out dividends to shareholders, making a consistent record of paying dividends since 1904. At the end of 1932, H.B. Boardman was still President of the Bank, and total assets were $16.7 million. The forties threw the nation into World War II, Schenectady Trust put plans in motion to provide direct auto financing for the increasing mobile population. By 1946, the Union Street Branch was open. At the end of 1942, Edward T. Rice was Chairman of the Board and Laurence G. Magner was President of the Bank; total assets were $34.9 million. In 1947, Schenectady Trust acquired Union National Bank, which opened in 1891. Modernization of the Main Branch and State Street Branch began.

Post War Era[edit]

In response to the 1954 opening of the New York State Thruway, Schenectady Trust expanded with branches into the suburbs to accommodate the growing population. By 1956, the Mayfair Branch office in Glenville and the Sheridan Plaza Branch office were opened. The Union Street Branch office was moved into its present location during the fifties. Ralph H. Rue was President of the bank at the end of 1952 and total assets were $74.2 million.


Though the local Schenectady economy began the decade with a slowdown, employment ended on an upswing at Schenectady Trust as they continued to grow with the community. Four more Branch offices were opened during the time: Rotterdam in 1965, the Trust Division in March 1968 and in June, 1968 Clifton Park and Plaza Seven were opened. In 1965, the financial computer center of Eastern New York was organized as a joint electronic data processing center by Schenectady Trust and eight other area banks. At the end of 1962, Ralph H. Rue was still President of the Bank, and total assets were $100.2 million.


In spite of inflation, the seventies showed growth in the Health care savings account rules area—that growth was reflected in the Bank's services and prompted additional Branch office openings. New services were introduced during this period: Personal Line of Credit, Statement Savings and Bank Americard (now VISA). Along with the new services, new Branches were opened in Niskayuna, Colonie and Guilderland. In 1973 the Main Branch interior was again enlarged and renovated, and is there a fire in contra costa county today lot at the rear of the bank (former location of Redmond gas station) was purchased for parking and allowed access to Erie Boulevard. Toward the very end of the seventies, additional properties on Erie Boulevard were purchased that would later become the Trust Operations Building. At the end of 1972, H. Gladstone McKeon was President of the Bank and total assets were $151 million.

1980s and Formation of TrustCo Bank Corp NY[edit]

The bank continued to expand in the 1980s as they extended to the entire Capital Region. In July 1982, TrustCo Bank Corp NY was formed and a new Operations Center opened on Erie Boulevard in 1982 to handle the acquisition of seven Bank of New York offices, which occurred in January 1984. Schenectady Trust Company was renamed Trustco Bank New York in January 1989.

By the end of 1982, Harry E. Whittingham, Jr. was chairman and chief executive officer, and Robert A. McCormick was president and chief operation officer of the bank. Total assets were $301.4 million, net trustco bank schenectady was $2.9 million and market capitalization was $17 million.

Acquisition of Home & City Savings Bank[edit]

Trustco acquired Home & City Savings Bank and a three-story expansion of the Erie Boulevard Trust Operations Building in 1991. In May 1992, Trustco Bank sponsored and hosted a Block party on Erie Boulevard to celebrate the 90th Anniversary of the Bank and its $2.1 billion in assets by the end of 1995. The nineties also saw new Branch openings in Glens Falls, Queensbury, Wilton Mall and Clifton Park—which along with the former Home & City offices brought the total Branch locations to 53 throughout the Capital Region by the end of the decade. At the end of 1992, Robert A. McCormick was president and chief executive officer of the Bank, total assets were $1.9 billion, net income was $17.5 million and market capitalization was $222 million.


In July 2000 Trustco acquired a Savings Bank Charter and subsequently acquired Service credit union branches near me Financial Corp. and its subsidiary, Landmark Community Bank, which was completed on July 28, 2000. Further expansion was made possible by an accompanying federal thrift charter. The Trustco Bank corporate headquarters relocated to Trustco Center in Glenville during 2001. The total number of Branch offices tops out at 60, with plans to expand downstate and into Florida. As of December 31, 2001 total assets were $2.6 billion, net income was $45.5 million and market capitalization was $896 million. Robert A. McCormick, chairman, president and chief executive officer, celebrated 25 years with the Bank in January 2002, 17 of those years serving as CEO. Despite a poor economy and bank bailouts, Trustco expanded into Downstate New York as well as into Florida between 2002 and 2009 (36 in Central Florida and five in other areas of the state). Two Branch openings occurred in the first quarter of 2010 in Sun City Center and Lady Lake, Florida. By March 2010, Trustco Bank had 134 branch locations in five states (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont and Florida).


As Trustco opens additional branches in new markets, they host grand opening events, as well as become a “Home Town Bank” by participating in and sponsoring local and community-centric events. Trustco Bank is a sponsor of the annual celebration, Red, Hot & Boom, a July Fourth celebration at Crane's Roost Park in the Uptown Altamonte area of Altamonte Springs, Florida. Florida Collegiate Summer League, a wood bat baseball league with five teams in Central Florida, is a recipient of a seasonal Trustco Bank sponsorship. Further, Holiday in the Park at Lake Eola in Downtown Orlando is an annual sponsorship event that Trustco participated in December 2008 and 2009. In New York, Trustco has sponsored the Clifton ParkFourth of July Parade that runs all the way from the Shenendehowa High School campus to Clifton Common. Giving back to their Schenectady roots, Truscto Bank also sponsors the Tri-City ValleyCats, a minor league baseball team named after the Tri-Cities – Troy, Albany and Schenectady – that make up New York state's Capital District.

Green initiatives[edit]

Trustco has incorporated green initiatives into its service offerings with online banking capabilities, as well as the marketing and promotions materials. In the spring of 2009, Trustco Bank sent out postcards on actual “seed paper,” encouraging deposits from new customers as well as put the wild-flower-growing mailer in the ground. Additionally, Trustco Bank created promotions centered on several local supermarkets and offered recyclable/reusable shopping totes and $50 gift cards, to keep trustco bank schenectady money and other natural resources, in the local community.

Awards and accolades[edit]

Trustco Bank was named a Bauer Financial recommended bank. Bank Director magazine named TrustCo Bank Corp NY (TrustCo, Nasdaq: TRST) as one of America's top banks. In its 1st Quarter 2009 edition the magazine named Trustco number 21 of the top 150 performers in the banking industry. TrustCo ranked 21st for the 2008 calendar year based on an objective analysis of profitability, capital strength and asset quality. Trustco has been nationally ranked three years in a row by highly respected financial reporting agencies. trustco bank schenectady links[edit]


BankTrustCo Bank
BranchState Street Schenectady Branch
Address320 State Street,
Schenectady, New York 12305
Contact Number(518) 381-3831
Service TypeFull Service, brick and mortar office
Date of Establishment03/25/1968
Branch Deposits$113,035,000

Opening Hours and Directions

Find Opening Hours on Google Maps

Bank Information
Bank Holding CompanyTRUSTCO BANK CORP NY
HeadQuarters Address1 Sarnowski Drive,
Glenville, NY 12302
United States
FDIC CERT #31945
Total Bank Assets$5,226,475,000
Domestic Deposits$4,462,280,000
RSSD (Federal Reserve ID Number)677176
RSSD (Federal Reserve ID Number) for Holding Company1048513

Routing Number for TrustCo Bank in New York

A routing number is a 9 digit code for identifying a financial institute for the purpose of routing of checks (cheques), fund transfers, direct deposits, harris auto, online payments, etc. to the correct bank branch. Routing numbers are also known as banking routing numbers, routing transit numbers, RTNs, ABA numbers, and sometimes SWIFT codes (although these are quite different from routing numbers as SWIFT codes are solely used for international wire transfers while routing numbers are used for domestic transfers). Routing numbers differ for checking and savings accounts, prepaid cards, IRAs, lines of credit, and wire transfers. Usually all banks have different routing numbers for each state in the US. You can find the routing number for TrustCo Bank in New York here.

Total Assets:The sum of all assets owned by the institution including cash, loans, securities, bank premises and other assets. This total does not include off-balance-sheet accounts.

RSSD:The unique number assigned by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) to the top regulatory bank holding company. This unique identifier for TrustCo Bank is 677176.

FDIC CERT #:The certificate number assigned to an institution for deposit insurance. The FDIC Certificate Number for State Street Schenectady Branch office of TrustCo Bank in Schenectady, NY is 31945. This unique NUMBER is assigned by the FDIC and is used to identify institutions and for the issuance of insurance certificates by FDIC.

Источник: aarp chase credit card address
  • Address:1620 Union Street, Schenectady, NY 12309

Other Nearby Atms

  • First National Bank of Scotia
    1476 Balltown Road, Schenectady, NY 12309
  • Trustco Bank
    1475 Balltown Road, Niskayuna, NY 12309, United States of America
  • Key Bank
    3337 Consaul Road, Schenectady, NY 12309
  • Capital Communications Federal CU
    582 Balltown Road, Schenectady, NY 12304
  • State Employees Federal Credit Union
    3200 Balltown Road, Schenectady, NY 12304
  • Trustco Bank
    3461 State Street, Schenectady, NY 12304
  • First New York, FCU
    1776 Union Street, Schenectady, NY 12309
  • Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company
    1766 Uniion Street, Schenectady, NY 12309
  • Key Bank
    1742 1744 Union Street, Schenectady, NY 12309
  • PYC Bitcoin ATM
    Hartz Family Cleaner, 1714 Union Street, Schenectady, NY 12309, United States of America
trustco bank schenectady


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *