You are here: / / IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, ...
, ,

IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, in an action stemming from the sale of defective residential mortgage backed securities, determined defendant’s (Morgan Stanley’s) alleged failure to notify plaintiff of the discovery of defective securities constituted an independent breach of contract claim. The First Department further determined, despite the purported “sole remedy” contractual provision, the cause of action for gross negligence was adequately pled and should not have been dismissed:

… [U]nder similar RMBS agreements, a seller’s failure to provide the trustee with notice of material breaches it discovers in the underlying loans states an independently breached contractual obligation, allowing a plaintiff to pursue separate damages … .

… Where parties contractually agree to a limitation on liability, that provision is enforceable, even against claims of a party’s own ordinary negligence … . The purpose of provisions that limit liability or remedies available in the event of breach is to “allocat[e] the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed” … . Courts will generally honor the remedies that the parties have contractually agreed to … . There are exceptions to this rule of law, however, and as a matter of long standing public policy, a party may not insulate itself from damages caused by its “grossly negligent conduct” … . Used in this context, “gross negligence” differs in kind, and not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence. “It is conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing” … . Morgan Stanley Mtge. Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v Morgan Stanley Mtge. Capital Holdings LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05781, 1st Dept 8-11-16

CONTRACT LAW (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/SECURITIES (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/NEGLIGENCE  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/GROSS NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION

You might also like
Criteria for Balancing the Need for a Public Trial and First Amendment Rights (Freedom of the Press) With the Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial Discussed in Some Detail—Here the Court’s Sealing of Some Records and Closures of the Courtroom Reflected a Proper Discretionary Balance
MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST FOR THE CHARGE WAS TIMELY; ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE RE: EXPERT WHO DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN.
FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OF A SAFE PLACE TO TIE OFF, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION.
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ $96,000, CONSTITUTING TWO MONTHS’ RENT AND A SECURITY DEPOSIT, WAS TRANSFERRED TO DEFENDANT FROM AN ATTORNEY’S IOLA ACCOUNT, THE $96,000 CONSTITUTED AN “IDENTIFIABLE FUND” WHICH DEFENDANT “CONVERTED” WHEN IT WAS NOT RETURNED (FIRST DEPT).
THE A-FRAME LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING WHEN HE FELL WAS DEFECTIVE AND LABOR LAW 240(1) APPLIED ON THAT GROUND ALONE; EVEN IF THE LADDER HAD NOT BEEN DEFECTIVE, LABOR LAW 240(1) WOULD STILL APPLY BECAUSE THE LADDER WOBBLED AFTER PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK; THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICABILITY OF LABOR LAW 240(1) WHERE A LADDER-FALL IS PRECEDED BY AN ELECTRIC SHOCK (FIRST DEPT).
NYC LOFT BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED TENANTS’ WITHDRAWAL OF THE LOFT LAW CONVERSION APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO OBTAIN RENT REGULATION COVERAGE OUTSIDE THE LOFT LAW’S STATUTORY SCHEME (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF HER PLEA AGREEMENT; SENTENCE REDUCED AND CONVICTION MODIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
RETRIAL VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; DEFENDANT HAD MADE A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DID NOT CONSENT TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DOCTRINE OF INDEFINITENESS IMPROPERLY APPLIED TO ORAL CONTRACT; BOTH QUANTUM... OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION...