You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED...
,

PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant TCW’s motion for summary judgment in this residential-backed mortgage securities (RBMS) fraud action should have been granted. TCW represented it could select less risky RBMS’s and plaintiff invested $27,000,000 . The market subsequently collapsed. The First Department found the proof of “loss causation” lacking:

” Loss causation is the causal link between the alleged misconduct and the economic harm ultimately suffered by the plaintiff'” … . To establish loss causation a plaintiff must prove that the ” subject of the fraudulent statement or omission was the cause of the actual loss suffered'” … . Moreover, ” when the plaintiff’s loss coincides with a marketwide phenomenon causing comparable losses to other investors, the prospect that the plaintiff’s loss was caused by the fraud decreases’, and a plaintiff’s claim fails when it has not . . . proven . . . that its loss was caused by the alleged misstatements as opposed to intervening events'” … . Indeed, when an investor suffers an investment loss due to a “market crash [] of such dramatic proportions that [the] losses would have occurred at the same time and to the same extent regardless of the alleged fraud,” loss causation is lacking … . Basis PAC-Rim Opportunity Fund (Master) v TCW Asset Mgt. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 01644, 1st Dept 3-2-17

SECURITIES (PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)/RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES (PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)/FRAUD (RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)/LOSS CAUSATION (FRAUD, RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)

You might also like
CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN AN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING A POLICE VAN.
DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 WHEN HIS POLICE VAN STRUCK PLAINTIFF AS SHE STEPPED INTO THE ROAD FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS; DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
A SERIES OF REMARKS MADE BY HIS SERGEANT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE REMARKS WERE MOTIVATED BY RACIAL ANIMUS; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (FIRST DEPT).
TO DEFEAT A CPLR 3215(C) MOTION TO DISMISS AN ACTION AS ABANDONED, “SUFFICIENT CAUSE” FOR A DELAY IN MAKING A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED, NOT THE CASE HERE; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED PARTICIPATION IN THE LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PARTIES DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO INTENT TO ABANDON THE ACTION; THE MAJORITY REJECTED THE DISSENTERS’ ARGUMENT, IN PART BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT A (NON-DEFECTIVE) A-FRAME LADDER FELL OVER WHILE PLAINTIFF HELD ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration
Pre-Discovery Motion for Summary Judgment Should Have Been Granted—Defendant Bus Driver’s Affidavit Explained the Collision Was the Result of His Reaction to an Emergency and Plaintiff Submitted No Alternate Factual Account
PLAINTIFF’S GENDER DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

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

MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL. PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID...