You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE, WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE NOTIFIED AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPURCHASE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES, WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S TIMELY COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO REFILE THE COMPLAINT WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trustee’s breach of contract action in the residential-mortgage-backed-securities (RMBS) case was properly dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to refile pursuant to CPLR 205 (which allows a suit to be refiled within six months of a dismissal that is not on the merits). The contractual sole remedy provision, which requires that the defendant (DLJ) be notified and given the opportunity to repurchase any mortgages deemed defective, was not be complied with and the timely complaint was dismissed for that reason:

As a general rule, under CPLR 205 (a) a subsequent action may be filed within six months of a non-merits dismissal of the initial timely-filed matter. Here, we conclude that CPLR 205 (a) applies to an RMBS trustee’s second action when its timely first action is dismissed for failure to comply with a contractual condition precedent. * * *

The difference between a procedural and substantive condition precedent is well-established. A condition precedent is substantive when it “describe[s] acts or events which must occur before a party is obliged to perform a promise made pursuant to an existing contract”… . In other words, the condition is “part of the cause of action and necessary to be alleged and proven, and without this no cause of action exist[s]” … , RMBS notice and sole remedy provisions are not substantive elements of the cause of action, but instead limitations on the remedy for a breach of the mortgage loan representations and warranties … . They serve as a precondition, “a procedural prerequisite to suit,” not a separate undertaking by the trustee … . Since notice and sole remedy provisions “do[] not create a substantive condition precedent” … , they do not affect when the statute of limitations commences because the limitations clock begins to run when the contract is executed.

Nevertheless, DLJ argues that the Trustee had to fulfill the procedural condition precedent before the limitations period expired, and its failure to do so rendered the original action untimely, such that a new action cannot be commenced pursuant to CPLR 205 (a). DLJ’s argument cannot be reconciled with our case law that a suit may be refiled pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) despite a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a condition precedent prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01169, CtApp 2-19-19

 

, , ,

TRUSTEE’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS TIME-BARRED, THE ACTION COULD NOT RELATE BACK PURSUANT TO CPLR 203 BECAUSE THE TIMELY ACTION BY ANOTHER PARTY WAS PRECLUDED BY THE CONTRACT, THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY PURSUANT TO CPLR 205, EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT FULLY ADDRESSED IN SUPREME COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trustee’s breach of contract action in this residential-mortgage-backed-securities securities case was time-barred. A certificate holder had filed a timely action, but the relevant contract precluded the action by the certificate holder. Therefore the trustee’s action could not be deemed to relate-back to it (CPLR 203). The Court of Appeals could not consider whether the trustee’s action was timely under CPLR 205, despite the fact that the Appellate Division addressed the issue, because the issue was not fully addressed by the parties in Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals does not have interest of justice jurisdiction:

CPLR 203 (f) has no application here because the certificate holder’s pre-existing action was not valid. The lower courts concluded that under the no action clause, the certificate holder could not bring the action on behalf of itself, any other certificate holder, or the Trustee. Those conclusions are not at issue in this Court. Thus, the certificate holder’s action was subject to dismissal, and there is no valid pre-existing action to which a claim in a subsequent amended pleading may relate back. The Trustee’s contention that it may use the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203 (f) to cure the certificate holder’s lack of a right to sue, and that it may therefore avoid any problem with the identity of the plaintiff upon re-filing pursuant to CPLR 205 (a), is without merit. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01168, CtApp 2-19-19

 

,

MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL A HOSPITAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEDURE WHEN A PATIENT REQUESTS AN ADMISSION OR RETENTION HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined Mental Hygiene Legal Services did not have standing to seek a writ of mandamus to compel a hospital to comply with Mental Hygiene Law 9.31 (b) “which sets forth the procedure that must be followed after a patient requests an admission or retention hearing:

MHLS alleges that, in early 2016, it “began to notice problems with the medical charts offered into evidence by BPC [Bronx Psychiatric Center]” because “documents contained in the chart had been added or removed just prior to the hearing.” MHLS filed this CPLR article 78 petition in the nature of mandamus, in its own name — and separate from any specific client or proceeding — seeking an order compelling BPC to provide copies of a patient’s entire clinical chart when it provides notice of a request for an admission or retention hearing, arguing the clinical chart is part of the “record of the patient” under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31. Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Daniels, 2019 NY Slip Op 01123, CtApp 2-14-19

 

,

COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION ONLY AVAILABLE TO A PARTY WHO IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE, AS OPPOSED TO LIABLE FOR THE PARTY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a party cannot obtain common-law indemnification unless it is vicariously liable:

The court properly granted the motions … for summary judgment dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against them. “[A] party cannot obtain common-law indemnification unless it has been held to be vicariously liable without proof of any negligence . . . on its own part” … , and the only claims ever asserted against defendant [in this case] sought to hold it liable for its own negligence rather than vicariously liable … . Ramirez v Almah, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01153 [169 AD3d 508], First Dept 2-14-19

 

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT TOLL WHILE DEFENDANT WAS OUT OF STATE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN SERVED OUT OF STATE, PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statute of limitations did not toll while defendant was out of state and the action was therefore time-barred:

The plaintiffs’ contention that the action was timely because they were entitled to the benefit of the tolling provision of CPLR 207 based on the defendant’s alleged absence from the state did not raise a question of fact. Under that statute, as relevant here, when a defendant leaves the state after an action has accrued, and is continually absent from the state for at least four months, the time of the defendant’s absence is not included in the time during which the action must be commenced. This tolling provision, however, does not apply “while jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be obtained without personal delivery of the summons to the defendant within the state” (CPLR 207[3] …). In other words, the toll will not apply if there is a means by which the defendant may be served notwithstanding his or her absence from the state … . Here, even during his alleged absence from New York State, the defendant was subject to service of process (see CPLR 302[a][2]; 308[5]; 313 …). The plaintiffs did not submit evidence establishing that the defendant was attempting to evade service of process by, for example, living secretly in a foreign country, such that no means of service of process on him was available … . MP v Davidsohn, 2019 NY Slip Op 01069, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN AT THE TIME THE MOTION TO EXTEND WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint in the interest of justice, noting that the statute of limitations had expired when plaintiff made her motion to extend:

The interest of justice standard “requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties” … . “Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff [seeking an extension in the interest of justice] need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter” … . “However, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the [potentially] meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … .

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting, in the interest of justice, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant. The statutory 120-day period for service of process commenced in November 2016… . In December 2016, the plaintiff attempted service on the defendant on multiple occasions. Moreover, she promptly moved, inter alia, for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint after the defendant challenged the service on the ground that it was defective … . The statute of limitations had expired at the time the plaintiff made her motion, and there was no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant. Darko v Guerrino, 2019 NY Slip Op 01058, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

, ,

MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL COUNSEL PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the common interest privilege applied to a memorandum by plaintiff’s general counsel:

The motion court properly held that a legal memorandum prepared by plaintiff’s General Counsel, and addressed to its Chief Executive Officer, which provided a summary and analysis of its pending litigation matters, including the litigation at issue, and subsequently shared with potential merger partners during the due diligence period pursuant to a common interest agreement, was privileged and protected from disclosure.

The common interest privilege is an exception to the traditional rule that the presence of a third-party at a communication between counsel and client is sufficient to deprive the communication of confidentiality. The common interest doctrine is a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege, and requires that: (1) the underlying material qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege, (2) the parties to the disclosure have a common legal interest, and (3) the material must pertain to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation for it to be protected. The record, here, demonstrates that the common interest agreement was entered into in reasonable anticipation of litigation … .  Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v SAI Global Compliance, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01164, First Dept 2-14-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE INSIDE THE BUILDING SHE WAS WORKING IN, THE JURY COULD RATIONALLY CONCLUDE THE ICE WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF SOMEONE INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS BASED ON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as based on legally insufficient evidence was properly denied in this Labor Law 241 (6) action. Plaintiff’s job was removing asbestos from a building. After getting out of her asbestos suit in the decontamination room and walking in the interior of the building she slipped and fell on ice. The Second Department held that the jury could have rationally concluded someone participating in the construction project was negligent:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the jury verdict as based on legally insufficient evidence and for judgment as a matter of law. There was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led a rational jury to conclude that the negligence of some party to, or participant in, the construction project caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . The jury could have credited the plaintiff’s trial testimony that she slipped on a large patch of ice on the floor of a building that did not have heating on a cold January day, and therefore, rationally conclude that “someone within the chain of the construction project was negligent in not exercising reasonable care, or acting within a reasonable time, to prevent or remediate the hazard, and that plaintiff’s slipping, falling and subsequent injury proximately resulted from such negligence” … . Bocanegra v Chest Realty Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01048, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

, ,

PETITIONERS DID NOT TAKE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AND THE POWER PLANT BECAME OPERATIONAL AT THE OUTSET OF THE MOTION PRACTICE SEEKING TO VACATE CERTAIN PERMITS WHICH ALLOWED THE PLANT TO RESUME OPERATIONS, THE APPEAL WAS DEEMED MOOT AND THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that Sierra Club’s petition seeking to vacate permits issued to allow respondents to operate a natural gas and biomass power plant, which was formerly coal-powered, was properly dismissed as moot. Petitioner’s did not seek a temporary restraining order or other measures to preserve the status quo. The plant became operational while the motion seeking temporary injunctive relief was pending:

We agree with respondents that the appeal should be dismissed as moot … . Litigation over construction is rendered moot when the progress of the work constitutes a change in circumstances that would prevent the court from ” rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy’ ” … . In addition to the progress of the construction, other factors relevant to evaluating claims of mootness are whether the party challenging the construction sought injunctive relief, whether the “work was undertaken without authority or in bad faith” …, and whether “substantially completed work” can be undone without undue hardship… . The primary factor in the mootness analysis is “a challenger’s failure to seek preliminary injunctive relief or otherwise preserve the status quo to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of the litigation”… . Generally, a petitioner seeking to halt a construction project must “move for injunctive relief at each stage of the proceeding” … .

The plant has been operating lawfully since March 2017. The failure to preserve the status quo is entirely the fault of petitioners, who waited until the last possible day to commence this proceeding, failed to request a TRO, failed to pursue an injunction with any urgency, waited until the last possible day to take an appeal, spent nine months perfecting the appeal, and failed to seek injunctive relief from this Court until approximately one year after the entry of the judgment, in a transparent attempt to avoid dismissal of this appeal. Matter of Sierra Club v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2019 NY Slip Op 01022, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

, ,

ALLEGATIONS OF COMPENSABLE DAMAGES INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss fraud causes of action should have been granted because the allegation of compensable damages was deficient. “Plaintiff, a debt buying company, commenced this action alleging … [defendants] fraudulently induced it to purchase additional debt portfolios pursuant to its agreements with a third party by misrepresenting the terms of the financing arrangement secured by defendants to facilitate the purchase of such portfolios;”

“To allege a cause of action based on fraud, plaintiff must assert a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury’ ” … . ” The true measure of damage is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong’ or what is known as the out-of-pocket’ rule” … . “Under this rule, the loss is computed by ascertaining the difference between the value of the bargain which . . . plaintiff was induced by fraud to make and the amount or value of the consideration exacted as the price of the bargain’ ” … .

Here, we conclude that, even as supplemented by the affidavit of plaintiff’s president … , “plaintiff’s pleading is fatally deficient because [it] did not assert compensable damages resulting from defendants’ alleged fraud” … . With respect to the purchase of the subject portfolios, plaintiff received an interest therein worth more than the amount of its alleged investment … . Further, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the allegation that it lost the enhanced collections on the portfolios that defendants purportedly told it that it could receive under the terms of the financing arrangement is a “quintessential lost opportunity, which is not a recoverable out-of-pocket loss”… . “Damages are to be calculated to compensate plaintiff[] for what [was] lost because of the fraud, not to compensate . . . for what . . . might have [been] gained . . . [T]here can be no recovery of profits which would have been realized in the absence of fraud” … . Southwestern Invs. Group, LLC v JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01035, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

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