Urban's remaining claim is that Royal violated section 7-103 (2), which requires the security deposit to be maintained "in a {**53 Misc 3d at 462}banking organization having a place of business within the state." It is undisputed that Royal placed the security deposit in a Wells Fargo account at a branch in New Jersey. It also is undisputed that Wells Fargo has branches in New York, that is, Wells Fargo has "a place of business within the state." The parties dispute whether section 7-103 (2) requires the security deposit to be placed in a New York branch. While the statute does not expressly address this question, Urban avers that the so-called "separate entity rule," pursuant to which branches of banks in different jurisdictions are treated as separate entities for the purposes of enforcing judgments, should impel the court to interpret section 7-103 (2) to require the security deposit to be maintained at a New York branch. (See Motorola Credit Corp. v Standard Chartered Bank, 24 NY3d 149, 158 [2014] ["The separate entity rule . . . provides that even when a bank garnishee with a New York branch is subject to personal jurisdiction, its other branches are to be treated as separate entities for certain purposes, particularly with respect to CPLR article 62 prejudgment attachments and article 52 postjudgment restraining notices and turnover orders"]; Matter of B&M Kingstone, LLC v Mega Intl. Commercial Bank Co., Ltd., 131 AD3d 259, 266 [1st Dept 2015] ["The separate entity rule is that each branch of a bank is a separate entity, in no way concerned with accounts maintained by depositors in other branches or at the home office" (quotation marks and brackets omitted)].) In Motorola, the Court of Appeals "decline[d] Motorola's invitation to cast aside the separate entity rul