For example, Gill alleged that the bank provided services between 2000 and 2002 to a group called the Saudi Committee for the Support of the Intifada Al Quds, which purportedly funded Hamas. Weinstein said the dates were too remote to be connected to an attack in 2008, and that in any case, Gill had not shown any direct connection between the Saudi group and his attacker.
Similarly, Gill alleged the bank served Palestinian charities that acted as fronts for Hamas.
"There is no proof that anything but routine financial services to the charities alleged to be front organizations were provided, and none of the charities were designated by the United States as front groups when the charities received services from the Bank," Weinstein said.
In fact, the judge said, some of the charities received funds from the U.S. government.
"Plaintiff can point to no evidence that the Bank consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the services it provided would end up in the hands of Hamas and be used to perpetrate a terrorist attack on an American national in April 2008," Weinstein said.
Gary Osen of Osen LLC, counsel to Gill, said his client would appeal.
"We are obviously very disappointed by the court's decision," Osen said in an email. "No federal court has required the kind of proximity in time between the material support provided and the date of a terrorist attack as the Gill court requires."
Kevin Walsh of DLA Piper, counsel for the bank, could not be reached for comment.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
