Bankruptcy Archives - New York Appellate Digest

THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY DID NOT RELIEVE THE PLAINTIFF OF THE OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that defendant had filed for bankruptcy did not relieve the plaintiff in this foreclosure action from the obligation to comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, among other things, the affidavit of Kyle Lukas, a Senior Loan Analyst for … the purported parent company of the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Lukas averred that a 90-day notice was not required to be sent to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304(3) due to the defendant’s bankruptcy filing … . In addition, while the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, copies of the note and mortgage, the pleadings, and the notice of default, it did not submit any documentation evidencing service of the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the fact that the defendant previously filed for bankruptcy protection did not relieve the plaintiff of its obligation to send the RPAPL 1304 notice to her prior to commencing the action … . Accordingly, since the plaintiff did not demonstrate its strict compliance with the statute, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike her answer, and for an order of reference, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … . Mastr Adjustable Rate Mtges. Trust 2007-1 v Joseph, 2020 NY Slip Op 04935, Second Dept 9-16-20

September 16, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Bankruptcy, Corporation Law, Insurance Law

BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THIS DIRECTORS & OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST FORMED TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion applied to the Directors & Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy:

Plaintiff Westchester Fire Insurance Co. … commenced this action seeking a declaration that it has no coverage obligations to defendants insureds, arguing primarily that the “insured versus insured” exclusion of a Directors and Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy, procured by RCS Capital Corporation (RCAP), bars coverage of claims asserted against defendants, … RCAP’s former directors and officers. Defendants insureds contend, among other things, that coverage exists under the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion. The claims, herein, arose after RCAP’s bankruptcy.

The Creditor Trust was formed, pursuant to the reorganization plan, to pursue the bankruptcy estate’s legal claims on behalf of the unsecured creditors … . …

This appeal raises an issue of apparent first impression of whether a D & O liability policy’s bankruptcy exception, which allows claims asserted by the “bankruptcy trustee” or “comparable authority,” applies to claims raised by a Creditor Trust, as a post-confirmation litigation trust, to restore D & O coverage removed by the insured vs. insured exclusion. For the reasons that follow, we find that the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion, applies to restore coverage. Specifically, we interpret the broad language “comparable authority” to encompass a Creditor Trust that functions as a post-confirmation litigation trust, given that such a Creditor Trust is an authority comparable to a “bankruptcy trustee” or other bankruptcy-related or “comparable authority” listed in the bankruptcy exception. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Schorsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 04627, First Dept 8-20-20

August 19, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Bankruptcy, Contract Law, Corporation Law, Insurance Law

THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE CREDIT TRUST SUED THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE INSURED ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined that the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion of a Directors and Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy applied to a Creditor Trust. The Creditor Trust was formed pursuant to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan for the insured, RCS Capital Corporation (RCAP), to pursue the bankruptcy estate’s legal claims on behalf of unsecured creditors of the insured:

… [T]he Creditor Trust sued RCAP’s directors and officers alleging they had breached their fiduciary duties to the company. The directors and officers sought coverage under RCAP’s D & O liability policy with Westchester (the insurer). Westchester commenced this action in response, seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no coverage obligations.

This appeal raises an issue of apparent first impression of whether a D & O liability policy’s bankruptcy exception, which allows claims asserted by the “bankruptcy trustee” or “comparable authority,” applies to claims raised by a Creditor Trust, as a post-confirmation litigation trust, to restore D & O coverage removed by the insured vs. insured exclusion. For the reasons that follow, we find that the bankruptcy exception, to the insured vs. insured exclusion, applies to restore coverage. Specifically, we interpret the broad language “comparable authority” to encompass a Creditor Trust that functions as a post-confirmation litigation trust, given that such a Creditor Trust is an authority comparable to a “bankruptcy trustee” or other bankruptcy-related or “comparable authority” listed in the bankruptcy exception. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Schorsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 02895, First Dept 5-14-20

May 14, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Negligence

ALTHOUGH THE PARTY TWICE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT LISTING THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AS AN ASSET, THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED AND THE ACTION WAS ADDED AS AN ASSET; AT THAT POINT THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE BECAME THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON THE PARTY’S INITIAL FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET, DID NOT APPLY TO THE TRUSTEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion to dismiss the medical malpractice complaint on judicial estoppel grounds should not have been granted. Vormnadiryan commenced a medical malpractice action in 2006. In two bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 and 2016 the medical malpractice action was not listed as an asset by Vormnadiryan. In 2017 Vormnadiryan opened the 2008 bankruptcy action and the medical malpractice action was added as an asset, making the bankruptcy trustee the plaintiff in that action. The Second Department determined Vormandiryan’s initial failure to list the malpractice action as an asset did not subject the bankruptcy trustee, as the plaintiff in the malpractice action, to the judicial estoppel doctrine:

“The integrity of the bankruptcy system depends on full and honest disclosure by debtors of all of their assets. By failing to list causes of action on bankruptcy schedules of assets, the debtor represents that it has no such claims. Thus, the doctrine of judicial estoppel may bar a party from pursuing claims which were not listed in a previous bankruptcy proceeding” … . “Because the doctrine is primarily concerned with protecting the judicial process, relief is granted only when the risk of inconsistent results with its impact on judicial integrity is certain” … . …

Here, the 2008 bankruptcy proceeding was reopened by the Bankruptcy Court so that the 2006 medical malpractice action could be identified as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, judicial estoppel cannot be predicated on Vormnadiryan’s failure to list the action as an asset when she originally filed the 2008 bankruptcy petition … . Further, once a bankruptcy proceeding is commenced, all legal or equitable interests of the debtor become part of the bankruptcy estate, including any causes of action (see 11 USC § 541[a][1] … ). The trustee in bankruptcy, as representative of the estate, “has capacity to sue and be sued” … . Pereira v Meisenberg, 2020 NY Slip Op 02815, Second Dept 5-13-20

May 13, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STAY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BEFORE THE STAY WENT INTO EFFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge dissent, determined an automatic bankruptcy stay tolls the statute of limitations where a party has a pending action at the time the stay was imposed:

New York law tolls the statute of limitations where “the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition” (CPLR 204 [a]). Federal bankruptcy law automatically stays the commencement or continuation of any judicial proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition (see 11 USC § 362 [a]). We must determine whether the bankruptcy stay qualifies as a “statutory prohibition” under CPLR 204 (a), and, if so, whether a party may later avail itself of the toll where, at the time the stay was imposed, that party had a pending action asserting the same claim. … [W]e answer yes to both questions … . * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” The result here depends on our reading of the term “commencement.”

Plaintiff argues that it is impossible for defendant to have been prohibited from “commencing” an action because a foreclosure action had been commenced prior to plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing. Application of plaintiff’s rule would be as follows: Because defendant filed the first foreclosure claim and defendant responded by filing a bankruptcy petition, invoking the automatic stay, commencement of that first action was not “stayed” under the statute and the toll is inapplicable. And when defendant filed a second foreclosure action, and plaintiff again responded by again filing a bankruptcy petition that invoked the automatic stay, “commencement” of that second action was not stayed, once again making the toll inapplicable … . * * *

Neither this Court nor the Legislature has restricted the term “commencement” to the first time a party files a complaint asserting a cause of action; instead the term may also include the commencement of subsequent actions asserting the same claim … . Lubonty v U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.., 2019 NY Slip Op 08520, CtApp 11-25-19

November 25, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Bankruptcy, Negligence

BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR PLAINTIFF IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET IN HIS VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bankruptcy trustee was properly substituted, by the Bankruptcy Court, for plaintiff in a personal injury action, despite the fact that the action had not been listed as an asset when plaintiff filed a voluntary petition for chapter 7 bankruptcy:

The rule that a substitution cannot be made is grounded in Reynolds v Blue Cross of Northeastern N.Y., Inc. (210 AD2d 619). In that case, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary petition for chapter 7 bankruptcy, and failed to list the action on the schedule of assets. After the plaintiffs were discharged from bankruptcy, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue. During the pendency of the motion, the plaintiffs moved in the Bankruptcy Court to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding and to have a successor trustee appointed. A successor trustee was appointed, and both the plaintiffs and the interim trustee opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division, 3rd Department, determined that substitution was not available to cure the deficiency, on the ground that a party with no capacity to sue could not be replaced with one who had the capacity to sue, citing Matter of C & M Plastics (Collins) (168 AD2d 160, 161-162). However, in Matter of C & M Plastics (Collins), the proceeding in the Supreme Court was commenced after a bankruptcy petition was filed; therefore, in that case, the plaintiff did not have capacity to sue at the time of the commencement of the action.

Although subsequent cases have held that a substitution of the bankruptcy trustee for the plaintiff cannot be made, even if the plaintiff had the capacity to sue at the time the action or proceedings was commenced (see Rivera v Markowitz, 71 AD3d 449, 450; Pinto v Ancona, 262 AD2d 472), other cases have held that where a motion for substitution was made at the direction of a bankruptcy court, the motion should be granted, as a matter of comity (see Berry v Rampersad, 21 Misc 3d 851 [Sup Ct, Kings County]). … As a matter of comity, and in deference to the determination of the Bankruptcy Court, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the plaintiff’s cross motion, inter alia, to substitute the bankruptcy trustee as the plaintiff, and to deny the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of capacity to sue, and thereupon, to dismiss the complaint. Fausset v Turner Constr. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 08173, Second Dept 11-13-19

November 13, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure, Negligence

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION AS AN ASSET IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not have the legal capacity to sue in this slip and fall case because the action was not listed as an asset in a prior bankruptcy proceeding:

“The failure of a party to disclose a cause of action as an asset in a prior bankruptcy proceeding, which the party knew or should have known existed at the time of that proceeding, deprives him or her of the legal capacity to sue subsequently on that cause of action'” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not disclose, in the bankruptcy petition that she filed in October 2015, the existence of the cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries that she had previously asserted against the defendant. The defendant established, prima facie, that when the petition was filed, the plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence of her cause of action, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to that prima facie showing … . Jean-Paul v 67-30 Dartmouth St. Owners Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05965, Second Dept 7-31-19

July 31, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Bankruptcy, Legal Malpractice, Negligence

PLAINTIFF SUED DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS ALLEGING INACCURATE ADVICE CAUSED HER TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY, BECAUSE THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ACCRUED WHEN PLAINTIFF FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, THE LAWSUIT BECAME PART OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE AND PLAINTIFF WAS THEREBY STRIPPED OF THE CAPACITY TO SUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not have the capacity to sue the defendant attorneys for legal malpractice. The lawsuit alleged the attorneys gave inaccurate advice which caused plaintiff to file for bankruptcy on March 20, 2012. Because plaintiff’s legal malpractice action accrued on the day she filed for bankruptcy, and the lawsuit was not listed as an asset, the lawsuit became part of the bankruptcy estate:

The commencement of a bankruptcy proceeding creates an “estate” that is comprised of “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case” (11 USC § 541[a][1]…). “Upon the filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition, all property which a debtor owns, including a cause of action, vests in the bankruptcy estate” … . “Although federal law determines when a debtor’s interest in property is property of the bankruptcy estate, property interests are created and defined by state law”… . Causes of action that accrue under state law prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition, as well as those that accrue as a result of the filing, are property of the estate … . “[A] debtor’s failure to list a legal claim as an asset in his or her bankruptcy proceeding causes the claim to remain the property of the bankruptcy estate and precludes the debtor from pursuing the claim on his or her own behalf” … . Burbacki v Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 04128, Second Dept 5-29-19

May 29, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure

DEBTOR’S LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOMMENCE THE SUIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bankruptcy trustee could take advantage of CPLR 205 (a) to recommence a lawsuit within six months of the dismissal. The timely filed action was dismissed because the debtor did not list the suit as an asset in the bankruptcy filings:

… [D]ismissal of the 2013 action was not based upon a voluntary discontinuance, lack of personal jurisdiction, neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment on the merits (see CPLR 205[a]). … CPLR 205(a) is applicable even though the 2013 action was dismissed based on the debtor’s incapacity to sue. The extension provisions of CPLR 205(a) are available to a plaintiff who seeks to recommence an action, notwithstanding that the prior action upon which the plaintiff relies was “invalid” in the sense that it contained a fatal defect … .

Although, as a general matter, only the plaintiff in the original action is entitled to the benefits of CPLR 205(a), the Court of Appeals has nevertheless recognized an exception to this general rule under certain circumstances where the plaintiff in the new action is seeking to enforce “the rights of the plaintiff in the original action” … . The Court of Appeals also has stated that the statute’s ” broad and liberal purpose is not to be frittered away by any narrow construction'” … . In this case, the plaintiff, the debtor’s bankruptcy trustee, seeks to recommence a personal injury action as the debtor’s successor-in-interest. As the debtor’s successor-in-interest, the plaintiff has the capacity to commence this action to recover damages for the debtor’s alleged personal injuries … . Consequently, the plaintiff is not seeking to enforce any rights separate and independent from those asserted by the debtor in the prior action … . Goodman v Skanska USA Civ., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01394, Second Dept 2-27-19

February 27, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, AND THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this slip and fall case was entitled to severance of the action against the property owner, Pathmark (supermarket), which filed for bankruptcy, from the action against the snow removal contractor, Peterman:

The supermarket defendants filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, resulting in an automatic stay pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a). However, the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC § 362(a) did not extend to the nonbankrupt Peterman … . “Generally, the balance of the equities lies with plaintiff[ ] when severance is sought because the case against one defendant is stayed pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a), and that is particularly so in this personal injury action where a delay would be prejudicial to the plaintiff[ ]” … .

The supermarket defendants are subject to a $750,000 self-insured retention, which would make a lifting of the bankruptcy stay less likely. As the prejudice to the plaintiff in being required to await the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding before obtaining any remedy outweighs any potential inconvenience to Peterman, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the action insofar as asserted against the supermarket defendants from the action insofar as asserted against Peterman … . Vogric v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01447, Second Dept 2-27-19