You are here: / / PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED...
,

PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the action alleging breach of warranties and representations in connection with the purchase of residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) properly survived motions to dismiss. The opinion is fact-specific and turns on the terms of the contracts.  The issues, all of which survived the dismissal motions, were summarized by the court as follows:

This appeal stems from a transaction involving residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS). Plaintiff, the administrator of the securitized trust, seeks to enforce the loan repurchase rights, more commonly referred to as putback rights, against defendant sponsor of the securitized transaction for breach of the representations and warranties defendant made regarding the quality of the mortgage loans. This action raises a number of issues that regularly recur in putback actions, including whether the action was timely commenced, whether or not the action is unripe for failing to comply with a condition precedent to commencement of the action, and whether plaintiff adequately pleaded a cause of action for breach of the representations and warranties. This action also raises an issue of first impression of whether enforcement of putback rights is within the exclusive domain of a RMBS’s trustee so as to deny plaintiff Securities Administrator standing to commence this action. Natixis Real Estate Capital Trust 2007-HE2 v Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01796, 1st Dept 3-9-17

SECURITIES (PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/CONTACT LAW (PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/PUTBACK ACTIONS (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S SUIT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER LAW (LABOR LAW 740) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE STATUTE APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS; PLAINTIFF’S AGE-DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY BICYCLE-RIDING IN PUBLIC PARK, DESPITE REGULATIONS PROHIBITING BICYCLE-RIDING; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HIRED TO CARE FOR THE CHILD WHO STRUCK INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CHILD’S FATHER (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR) OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CARE-GIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN SUPERVISING THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE STAYED OUT OF TROUBLE WHILE ON PROBATION HE WOULD NOT BE DEPORTED, HOWEVER DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL, INCLUDING HIS UNDISPUTED STRONG DESIRE TO STAY IN THE US, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).
COVERAGE AT ISSUE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICY EXCLUSION (WHICH WAS THEN ADDED BACK IN BY AN ENDORSEMENT); BECAUSE THE COVERAGE WAS NOT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE POLICY A TIMELY DISCLAIMER WAS REQUIRED.
THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 70, THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW, DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S PENDING DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE THAT GUARDRAILS WERE AVAILABLE WAS NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Request Court-Permission to Re-Present Charges to a Grand Jury Is Reversible Error Which Survives a Guilty Plea
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A CABLE TRAY FELL ON HIS HEAD FROM THE TOP OF TWO LADDERS, A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE WORK TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE LESSEE WAS LIABLE AS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (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

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING...