You are here: / / FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED...
,

FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department determined plaintiff had sufficiently alleged fraud and aiding and abetting fraud in connection with defendants’ sale of defective residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS):

Defendants argue that in order to establish justifiable reliance, plaintiffs were required to allege that they sought additional information from defendants about the truthfulness of the representations made in the offering documents or that they requested the loan files for the loans underlying the RMBS. The level of due diligence advocated by defendants requires a prospective purchaser to assume that the credit ratings assigned to the securities were fraudulent and to verify them through a detailed retracing of the steps undertaken by the underwriter and credit rating agency. We do not require this heightened due diligence standard to support justifiable reliance in a pleading concerning such sales of securities by prospectus … .

… The element of scienter, that is, the requirement that the defendant knew of the falsity of the representation being made to the plaintiff, is, of course, the element most likely to be within the sole knowledge of the defendant and least amenable to direct proof” … . All that is required to defeat a motion to dismiss a fraud claim for lack of scienter is “a rational inference of actual knowledge” … . The allegations that defendants were informed about defects in the loans they were securitizing because they obtained this information through their own due diligence are sufficient to plead scienter … .  IKB Intl. S.A. v Morgan Stanley, 2016 NY Slip Op 05779, 1st Dept 8-11-16

FRAUD (FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND MOTION TO DISMISS)/SECURITIES (FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND MOTION TO DISMISS)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND MOTION TO DISMISS)

You might also like
THREE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FALSE ARREST CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 BEGAN TO RUN UPON ARRAIGNMENT.
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO TEN DAYS NOTICE OF SORA JUDGE’S INTENT TO, SUA SPONTE, DEPART FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINER’S RISK ASSESSMENT.
AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN AIR CONDITIONER WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR RODS ATTACHING THE AIR CONDITIONER TO THE CEILING DETACHED AND ONE END OF THE UNIT FELL; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS A FALLING OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, A SECURITY GUARD, ATTACKED HER; DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGED PLAINTIFF ATTACKED HIM AND HE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; THE EMPLOYER WOULD NOT BE LIABLE UNDER EITHER SCENARIO; THE EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).
In Responding to Defendant’s Criticisms of Defense Counsel’s Actions, Defense Counsel Merely Explained His Actions and Did Not Take a Position Adverse to His Client’s—Therefore the Defendant Was Not Entitled to Withdraw His Plea on the Ground that He Was Denied Effective Assistance of Counsel
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION... EVEN IF ANIMAL SHELTER FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFF OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS...