You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHICH PUT UP ITS EQUITY INTERESTS IN 11 PROPERTIES TO SECURE...
,

PLAINTIFF, WHICH PUT UP ITS EQUITY INTERESTS IN 11 PROPERTIES TO SECURE A $71 MILLION LOAN FROM DEFENDANT, SUED TO DECLARE VOID THE UCC NONJUDICIAL SALE OF THE PROPERTIES BY DEFENDANT, THAT ASPECT OF THE SUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant’s cause of action seeking to declare void the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) sale of plaintiff’s property, which was put up as collateral for a loan made to plaintiff by defendant, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff, Atlas, put up its equity interest in 11 properties as collateral for a $71 million loan from defendant, Macquarie. Atlas and Macquarie were unable to agree on an extension of time for repayment of the loan. After a UCC nonjudicial sale held by Macquarie, at which Atlas submitted bids, another buyer outbid Atlas. Atlas sued to void the sale:

Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs the enforcement of a creditor’s security interest. “The underlying purposes and policies of the [UCC] as a whole are to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions” … . Here, plaintiff … (Atlas), the debtor, is asking this Court to unwind a UCC sale of the equity interest in 11 commercial properties, which was collateral for Atlas’s $71 million mezzanine loan, borrowed from defendant … (Macquarie), the secured creditor. It is difficult to see how such an action would simplify the laws governing commercial transactions. Rather, if UCC sales could be unwound, it would only serve to muddy the waters surrounding nonjudicial sales conducted pursuant to article 9 of the UCC, and to deter potential buyers from bidding in nonjudicial sales, which would, in turn, harm the debtor and the secured party attempting to collect after a default. Moreover … Atlas’s argument does not have support in the plain reading of the UCC nor in existing case law. Atlas MF Mezzanine Borrower, LLC v Macquarie Tex. Loan Holder LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04495, First Dept 6-6-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK; THEN DEFENDANT STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN ROMANIA; THE RESULTS OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION MAY BE DISPOSITIVE IN THE NEW YORK ACTION; THE NEW YORK ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION, EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YORK ACTION WAS COMMENCED FIRST (FIRST DEPT).
Fiduciary’s Conflict of Interest Renders Transactions Voidable
Plaintiff Unable to Prove Actual Malice—Summary Judgment to Defendant
Warrantless Search of Backpack After Juvenile Was Handcuffed and Placed in a Police Car Justified by “Close Spatial and Temporal Proximity” and “Exigent Circumstances”
NEW YORK COURTS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENJOIN A TENNESSEE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
A MOVING CAR IS A PLACE WHERE THE VICTIM IS NOT LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE, UNDER THE FACTS, UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.
DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate
WHEN THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE ARRIVED TO CLEAN THE TANK, THE OPENING WAS COVERED ONLY BY CARDBOARD; AFTER FINISHING THE WORK, THE EMPLOYEE REPLACED THE CARDBOARD COVER; PLAINTIFF SUBSEQUENTLY STEPPED ON THE CARDBOARD AND FELL INTO THE TANK; THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WITHIN THE MEANING OF ESPINAL, 98 NY2D 140 (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

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND VACATED THE DEFAULT... THE PARKER WARNINGS DID NOT SPECIFICALLY WARN DEFENDANT HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE...