You are here: / Contract Law
,

CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the child support provisions of a stipulation of settlement in this divorce action should not be enforced because the children’s right to child support was jeopardized. Because the stipulation put a cap on father’s child support obligations, it was possible payment of room and board (college) for one sibling could exceed the cap leaving the other siblings without support:

​

“[T]he parties cannot contract away the duty of child support. Despite the fact that a separation agreement is entitled to the solemnity and obligation of a contract, when children’s rights are involved the contract yields to the welfare of the children. The duty of a parent to support his or her child shall not be eliminated or diminished by the terms of a separation agreement, nor can it be abrogated by contract” … .

The agreement here violates this rule. The credit sought by the father takes away that portion of child support intended for the welfare of the other two children. Taken to its logical end, the agreement threatens to completely deprive the other children of any support whatsoever, if monthly room and board costs for one child were to exceed $2,500. Keller-Goldman v Goldman, 2017 NY Slip Op 02723, 1st Dept 4-6-17

 

FAMILY LAW (CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, DIVORCE, CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)/CHILD SUPPORT (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)/DIVORCE  (CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)

,

AFTER TERMINATION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE ON INVOICES NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE OF ASSETS.

The Third Department determined plaintiff could not sue on invoices submitted for payment (which was refused) while plaintiff was in bankruptcy proceedings. Causes of action not listed in the bankruptcy proceedings cannot be sued upon after termination of the bankruptcy proceedings:

​

“Upon the filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition, all property which a debtor owns, including a cause of action, vests in the bankruptcy estate” … . As such, a debtor’s failure to list a legal claim as an asset in its bankruptcy proceeding precludes the debtor from pursuing such claim on its own behalf inasmuch as the claim remains the property of the bankruptcy estate … . “The only property that may revest in the debtor in its individual capacity at the conclusion of the proceeding is property that was dealt with in the bankruptcy or abandoned” … . …

… [T]he claims asserted by plaintiff … accrued prior to the termination of the bankruptcy proceeding … . [T]he omission of these claims from the … schedule of assets in the bankruptcy proceeding precludes plaintiff from pursuing them on its own behalf because they were not “dealt with” in such proceeding … . Lightning Capital Holdings LLC v Erie Painting & Maintenance, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02716, 3rd Dept 4-6-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (AFTER TERMINATION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE ON INVOICES NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE OF ASSETS)/BANKRUPTCY (AFTER TERMINATION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE ON INVOICES NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE OF ASSETS)

HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK.

The Second Department determined the dismissal of the quantum meruit action by the plaintiff home renovation contractor and the award of damages on the homeowners’ counterclaim was proper. The court noted that General Business Law 771 generally prohibits recovery by a home renovation contractor in the absence of a contract, however the contractor can bring an action in quantum meruit. Here the contractor did not prove entitlement to quantum meruit relief and the homeowners proved (by expert opinion) the damages related to needed corrections of the contractors’ work:

​

Although a contractor cannot enforce a contract that fails to comply with General Business Law § 771, a contractor may seek to recover based on the equitable theory of quantum meruit … . “The elements of a cause of action sounding in quantum meruit are (1) performance of services in good faith, (2) acceptance of services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) reasonable value of the services rendered” … .

Although an unenforceable writing may provide evidence of the value of services rendered in quantum meruit … , here, the record is devoid of evidence which would establish the reasonable value of the services [the contractor] may have provided to the defendants … . …

​

In contrast, the defendants, on their counterclaim, offered the testimony of experts regarding the cost they expended in completing or repairing roofing, flooring, brickwork, and other aspects of the project as set forth in the architectural plans. Home Constr. Corp. v Beaury, 2017 NY Slip Op 02628, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK)/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK)/CONTRACTORS (HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK)/QUANTUM MERUIT HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK)

, ,

RACE TRACK WAIVER OF LIABILITY INVALID, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK NOT APPLICABLE, IMPLIED ASSUMPTION OF RISK APPLICABLE, LAW OF THE CASE DID NOT PRECLUDE DIRECTED VERDICT AFTER DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SAME ISSUES.

The Fourth Department, in a substantive decision dealing with several liability and damages issues not summarized here, determined the trial court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict finding the liability waiver invalid and the doctrine of primary assumption of risk inapplicable. The Fourth Department concluded the doctrine of implied assumption of risk was applicable, however. The Fourth Department further held that the law of the case doctrine did not preclude the court from directing a verdict in plaintiff’s favor after denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the same issues. Plaintiff’s son was in an auto race at defendant race track. Plaintiff was in the pit area when defendant driver (Holland) backed his car into plaintiff:

Contrary to defendants’ contention, the court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict establishing that the liability waiver was invalid and that the action was not barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, inasmuch as there was “no rational process” by which the jury could have found in favor of defendants on those issues … . With respect to the waiver, General Obligations Law § 5-326 voids any such agreement entered into in connection with, as relevant here, the payment of a fee by a “user” to enter a place of recreation. Plaintiff testified at trial that he was a mere spectator on the night of the accident, thereby establishing that he was a user entitled to the benefit of section 5-326 … , and there was no evidence from which the jury could have rationally found that plaintiff was a participant in the event whose attendance was “meant to further the speedway venture” … . …

With respect to the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, we conclude that the risk that a pedestrian will be struck by a driver backing up in the pit area, well before the driver is participating in a race, is not inherent in the activity of automobile racing … , and thus that the doctrine is inapplicable to this case … .

We reject defendants’ further contention that the doctrine of law of the case precluded the court from directing a verdict in plaintiff’s favor after it had denied prior motions by plaintiff directed at the issues of waiver and primary assumption of the risk, including a motion for partial summary judgment. ” A denial of a motion for summary judgment is not necessarily . . . the law of the case that there is an issue of fact in the case that will be established at the trial’ “… . …

We further agree with defendants that a charge on implied assumption of the risk should have been given because there was evidence that plaintiff “disregard[ed] a known risk by voluntarily being in a dangerous area” … . Inasmuch as the jury was properly instructed on comparative negligence and apportioned 20% of the liability for the accident to plaintiff, however, we conclude that this error did not prejudice a substantial right of defendants and thus does not warrant reversal … . Knight v Holland, 2017 NY Slip Op 02525, 4th Dept 3-31-17

 

,

LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE COLLECTION OF RENT AFTER EVICTION BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.

The Second Department determined the clause in the lease which allowed the landlord to collect rent after eviction by summary proceedings was valid and enforceable:

“Although an eviction terminates the landlord-tenant relationship, the parties to a lease are not foreclosed from contracting as they please” … . “Where a lease provides that a landlord is under no duty to mitigate damages after its reentry by virtue of its successful prosecution of a summary proceeding, and that the tenant remains liable for damages, [the tenant] remain[s] liable for all monetary obligations arising under the lease'” … . Here, the lease did not obligate the plaintiff to mitigate damages after a dispossession by summary proceeding and specifically provided that [tenant] would remain liable for rent after eviction. In addition, the lease clearly stated that if [tenant] breached the lease, the plaintiff was not precluded from any other remedy in law or equity. Consequently, the lease did not limit the plaintiff to recovery of only pretermination rent in the event that it commenced a summary eviction proceeding to regain possession of the premises … . L’Aquila Realty, LLC v Jalyng Food Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02027, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE COLLECTION OF RENT AFTER EVICTION BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE)/CONTRACT LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE COLLECTION OF RENT AFTER EVICTION BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE)

STATUTE OF FRAUDS (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NOT MET, PART PERFORMANCE NOT APPLICABLE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of defendants’ counterclaim for a finder’s fee. General Obligations Law 5-701(a)(1) (Statute of Frauds) applies to contracts for services rendered in negotiating a business opportunity. In finding the writings did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds, the court explained the relevant criteria:

The memorandum necessary to satisfy the statute of frauds may be pieced together out of separate writings, connected with one another either expressly or by the internal evidence of subject matter and occasion … . In the event that one of the writings is unsigned, it may be read together with the signed writings, provided that they clearly refer to the same subject matter or transaction … . Here, the collective writings to which the defendants point, seeking to make out a written agreement sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds … , are insufficient since there is no writing establishing a contractual relationship between the parties which bears the signature of the plaintiff, who is the party to be charged … .

Additionally, part performance does not take the matter out of the statute of frauds. The exception to the statute of frauds for part performance has not been extended to General Obligations Law § 5-701… . Kelly v P & G Ventures 1, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02026, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NOT MET, PART PERFORMANCE NOT APPLICABLE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NOT MET, PART PERFORMANCE NOT APPLICABLE)/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NOT MET, PART PERFORMANCE NOT APPLICABLE)

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES OF DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING A NO ORAL WAIVER CLAUSE.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the failure of defendants to insist on the fulfillment of plaintiffs’ promise to make monthly minimum purchases of defendants’ product constituted a waiver of the minimum-purchases contract, notwithstanding the “no oral waiver” contractual provision:

… [W]e find that the Supreme Court properly concluded that … the affirmative conduct of [defendants] over the previous weeks and months evinced an unmistakable intent to waive the remaining 2006 minimum purchase requirements, including the 2006 annual minimum purchase requirement … . * * *

…[W]e agree with the Supreme Court that, under the facts presented, the agreements’ no-oral-waiver provision … does not compel a different result. As explained above, the [plaintiffs’] persistent and repeated failure to meet minimum purchase requirements, coupled with [defendants’] continued acceptance of such conduct without any reservation or protest until a few weeks before the expiration of the agreements (by which time it was, of course, too late to insist upon strict compliance with the terms of the agreements), equitably estops [defendants] from invoking the benefit of the no-oral-waiver provision … . Kamco Supply Corp. v On the Right Track, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op, 02025, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES OF DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING A NO ORAL WAIVER CLAUSE)/WAIVER (CONTRACT LAW, (DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES OF DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING A NO ORAL WAIVER CLAUSE)

,

GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAUSE IN A RELATED CONTRACT EXECUTED CLOSE IN TIME, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OUTSIDE PROOF NECESSARY.

The Second Department determined the forum selection clause in the loan contract was enforceable and applied to the related guaranty (which did not include a similar clause). The Second Department further determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint because proof of the amount owed required proof in addition to the documents:

… “[D]ocuments executed at about the same time and covering the same subject matter are to be interpreted together, even if one does not incorporate the terms of the other by reference, and even if they are not executed on the same date, so long as they are substantially’ contemporaneous” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the agreement and guaranty were executed sufficiently close in time and relate to the same subject matter, such that they should be interpreted together to determine the parties’ intent to be bound by the forum selection clause … . * * *

Although an unconditional guarantee may qualify as an instrument for the payment of money only … , here, neither the guaranty nor the underlying agreement relied upon by the plaintiff in support of its motion contains an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain, signed by the maker and due on demand or at a definite future time … . Since proof outside of the guaranty and underlying agreement is required to establish the amount of Platinum’s obligation to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint should have been denied, with the motion and answering papers deemed to be the complaint and answer, respectively … . Oak Rock Fin., LLC v Rodriguez, 2017 NY Slip Op 02048, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAUSE IN A RELATED CONTRACT EXECUTED CLOSE IN TIME, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OUTSIDE PROOF NECESSARY)/CONTRACT LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, (GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAUSE IN A RELATED CONTRACT EXECUTED CLOSE IN TIME, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OUTSIDE PROOF NECESSARY)/GUARANTY ((GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAUSE IN A RELATED CONTRACT EXECUTED CLOSE IN TIME, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OUTSIDE PROOF NECESSARY)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT (GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAUSE IN A RELATED CONTRACT EXECUTED CLOSE IN TIME, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OUTSIDE PROOF NECESSARY)

,

TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION.

The First Department determined the sidewalk defect was trivial and not actionable but the costs associated with defending the action were recoverable under the broad language of an indemnification clause (despite the absence of negligence):

Plaintiff’s description of the alleged defect that caused her fall as an “uneven spot” that “wasn’t as level as the other side” of a “little ridge” of concrete in the ground, without more, establishes that the alleged defect was trivial and nonactionable … . Moreover, defendants established that they had no notice of the alleged defect … . …

The indemnification provision in Montesano’s contract was … broad and required Montesano to indemnify defendants for liability, damage, etc., “resulting from, arising out of or occurring in connection with the execution of the Work,” including attorneys’ fees. Thus, although there was no negligence here, to the extent defendants incurred costs connected with Montesano’s execution of its work, which included constructing/resurfacing roads and sidewalks on this shopping center renovation project, Montesano is required to indemnify defendants. Robinson v Brooks Shopping Ctrs., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01972 1st Dept 3-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)/CONTRACT LAW (INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE, TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)/INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)/SLIP AND FALL (TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)

,

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)

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