, ,

DEFENDANT ASKED PLAINTIFF TO WIRE THE LOAN PROCEEDS TO A BANK IN NEW YORK; NEW YORK THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO CPLR 302, OVER THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY THE LOAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated defendant had a bank account in a New York bank to which the funds defendant borrowed from plaintiff were wired. Plaintiff alleged defendant breached a contract requiring the repayment of the loan:

CPLR 302(a)(1) provides that “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state.” “The CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdictional inquiry is twofold: under the first prong the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in the state, and under the second prong, the claims must arise from the transactions” … . The sufficient activities requirement is satisfied “so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful” … . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails [himself or herself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … .

“To satisfy the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1) that the cause of action arise from the contacts with New York, there must be an articulable nexus . . . or substantial relationship . . . between the business transaction and the claim asserted” … . “This inquiry is relatively permissive, and does not require causation, but merely a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored from the former, regardless of the ultimate merits of the claim” … . “CPLR 302(a)(1) is a single act statute and proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . Skutnik v Messina, 2019 NY Slip Op 08725, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, ,

REFERENCES TO JUDGMENTS IN A LICENSE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REDACTED IN THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY CONSUMER AFFAIRS OFFICE IN RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the response of the Nassau County Office for Consumer Affairs to a request for documents relating to licenses held by Home Beyond Center, LLC should not have had the references to judgments redacted:

FOIL requires government agencies to “make available for public inspection and copying all records,” subject to a number of exemptions (Public Officers Law § 87[2]). One such exemption permits an agency to deny access to records that “if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b) provides that “[a]n unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to” seven specified kinds of disclosure … . Where none of the seven specifications is applicable, a court “must decide whether any invasion of privacy . . . is unwarranted’ by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … .

Here, the respondent failed to demonstrate that the redactions of information contained in the license application file of Home Beyond Center, LLC, relating to “judgments” should be exempt from disclosure as an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Matter of Liang v Nassau County Off. of Consumer Affairs, 2019 NY Slip Op 07251, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

, , ,

THE “PARTICULARITY” PLEADING-REQUIREMENTS FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DO NOT APPLY TO CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE PURSUANT TO THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, because a fraudulent conveyance action does not require an intent to defraud, the specificity requirements in the CPLR for pleading a fraud cause of action do not apply. Here plaintiff alleged the defective design and construction of a condominium:

Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 273, a conveyance that renders the conveyor insolvent is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to actual intent, if the conveyance was made without fair consideration (see Debtor and Creditor Law § 273 …). Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 274, a conveyance is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to actual intent when it is “made without fair consideration when the person making it is engaged or is about to engage in a business or transaction for which the property remaining in his [or her] hands after the conveyance is an unreasonably small capital” … . Section 270 of the Debtor and Creditor Law defines “creditor” as any “person having any claim, whether matured or unmatured, liquidated or unliquidated, absolute, fixed, or contingent.”

Here, the complaint’s fifth cause of action sufficiently states cognizable claims alleging fraudulent conveyances pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274. Since valid claims of violations of Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274 do not require proof of actual intent to defraud, such claims are not required to be pleded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b) … . Further, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that it is a creditor of the sponsor since it asserted a breach of contract cause of action against the sponsor, even though said cause of action was unmatured at the time of the alleged conveyances … . Board of Mgrs. of E. Riv. Tower Condominium v Empire Holdings Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06587, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

,

THE DEPOSIT OF FULL PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN A COURT MONITORED ESCROW ACCOUNT DID NOT STOP THE ACCRUAL OF POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the deposit of full payment of judgments placed in a court monitored escrow account were subject to the accrual of post-judgment interest:

Defendants’ deposit of full payment on the judgments entered against it to a court monitored escrow account (the Monitorship Account) was not unconditional, such that it did not stop the accrual of post-judgment interest … . Although the Monitorship Order expressly directed the Monitor to collect the judgment amounts and expressly provides for the collection of “pre- and post-judgment interest,” such funds could not be further transferred until further order of the court. Moreover, the Monitorship Order reflects that the parties were not waiving “any rights, defenses or claims not set forth in the agreed order” by stipulating to the appointment of such Monitor. Accordingly, defendants’ payment to the Monitorship Account was conditioned on defendants preserving both their defenses to plaintiff’s claims, and defendants’ direct claims to those funds.

Contrary to defendants’ arguments, the payment to the Monitorship Account was not a “deposit to the court,” as it was not “pursuant to an order of the court, made upon motion” (CPLR 5021[a][3]). Rather under the circumstances, the Monitorship Account functioned simply as an escrow account while the defendants continued to oppose plaintiff’s claims and pursue their own. Triadou SPV S.A. v CF 135 Flat LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06453, First Dept 9-10-19

 

, ,

FAILURE TO PAY TAXES UNDER PROTEST PRECLUDES AN ACTION TO RECOVER THE PAYMENTS WHEN THE RELEVANT TAX RULE IS INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s putative class action to have Nassau County disgorge fees collected pursuant to the Nassau County Administrative Code for tax map certification letters issued by the County Clerk for real estate closings was properly dismissed. It is not explicitly stated, but apparently the taxing rule under which the fees were collected had been invalidated at some point:

“The settled law is that the payment of a tax or fee cannot be recovered subsequent to the invalidation of the taxing statute or rule, unless the taxpayer can demonstrate that the payment was involuntary” … . Where the payment is “necessary to avoid threatened interference with present liberty of person or immediate possession of property, the failure to formally protest will be excused” … . “Further, where the payment of a tax or fee is based on a material mistake of fact, the payment may be recovered even if it was made without protest” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not pay the fees under protest. Falk v Nassau County, 2019 NY Slip Op 06202, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

, , ,

FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION, AS ALLEGED, IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACTION FOR BREACH OF A LOAN GUARANTEE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s fraud cause of action was not duplicative on the action for breach of a loan guarantee and should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiff alleges that, as CEO of nonparty Karmaloop, Inc., defendant Gregory Selkoe solicited from plaintiff a bridge loan in the amount of $2,040,000. Plaintiff agreed, on condition that Selkoe personally guarantee the loan. Selkoe provided the personal guarantee, and also represented to plaintiff that he had previously given only one other personal guarantee, and that Karmaloop had never defaulted on any loan payment. Both of these representations were false, in that, unbeknownst to plaintiff, Selkoe had previously guaranteed a loan issued to another Karmaloop executive, and Karmaloop had defaulted on that loan.

The foregoing states a claim for fraudulent inducement, which is not duplicative of plaintiff’s claim for breach of the guarantee. Plaintiff does not allege that Selkoe misrepresented the intent to perform on the guarantee and underlying promissory note, which would render the fraud claim duplicative, but rather alleges that Selkoe misrepresented his and Karmaloop’s ability to perform … .

At this early juncture, we find that plaintiff should be “permitted to plead in the alternative (see CPLR 3014),” and its claim “for fraud, should not be dismissed as duplicative of the breach-of-contract cause of action” … . Man Advisors, Inc. v Selkoe, 2019 NY Slip Op 05483, First Dept 7-9-19

 

, ,

THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A DIVORCE DOES NOT RENDER ONE FORMER SPOUSE THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR OF THE OTHER, THEREFORE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WHO DOCKETS A JUDGMENT DOES NOT HAVE PRIORITY PURSUANT TO CPLR 5203 OVER A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOCKETED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the 2015 judgment of divorce which awarded the wife, Andrea, a percentage of marital property, a home worth $5 million, did not make Andrea a judgment creditor such that the failure to docket the judgment of divorce gave priority to a judgment debtor, Pangea, who had docketed a 2016 judgment:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has certified the following question to us: “If an entered divorce judgment grants a spouse an interest in real property pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236, and the spouse does not docket the divorce judgment in the county where the property is located, is the spouse’s interest subject to attachment by a subsequent judgment creditor that has docketed its judgment and seeks to execute against the property?” We answer that question in the negative. * * *

Pangea’s conception of Andrea as judgment creditor is utterly incompatible with our legislature’s dramatic revision of the Domestic Relations Law in 1980. By incorporating the concept of “marital property” into Domestic Relations Law § 236, “the New York Legislature deliberately went beyond traditional property concepts when it formulated the Equitable Distribution Law” … . … Marital assets are not owned by one spouse or another, and the dissolution of a marriage involving the division of marital assets does not render one ex-spouse the creditor of another. Courts are empowered “not only to make an equitable disposition of marital property between [the spouses], but also to make a distributive award in lieu of or to supplement, facilitate or effectuate the division or distribution of property where authorized in a matrimonial action, and payable in a lump sum or over a period of time” … . …

Andrea therefore cannot properly be considered a judgment creditor of John [her ex-husband]. Thus, CPLR 5203 (a), by its plain terms, has no application here, and Pangea can claim no priority. Pangea Capital Mgt., LLC v Lakian, 2019 NY Slip Op 05059, CtApp 6-25-19

 

,

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

 

, , ,

NEITHER THE VICTIM WITNESS PROTECTION ACT NOR THE MANDATORY VICTIM RESTITUTION ACT PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A JUDGMENT BASED SOLELY UPON RESTITUTION ORDERED IN A CRIMINAL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that neither the Victim Witness Protection Act (VWPA) nor the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) provided for a private right of action for a judgment based solely upon restitution ordered in a criminal case:

… [T]he VWPA makes civil remedies available to collect restitution but does not make restitution a civil judgment that can simply be enforced in a private suit … . Rather, a victim may pursue a civil action for damages in connection with the injuries that resulted in a restitution order, and the restitution order may provide assistance in proving liability, but the petitioner may not rely entirely on the restitution order and the amount ordered in the criminal action. Thus, the petitioner can separately plead and prove liability and damages under either a statutory or a common-law cause of action if the restitution order fails to satisfy the victim … . …

Some cases may support the conclusion that under the MVRA, a victim who has obtained a lien on property based on a restitution order may enforce that lien in a special court proceeding … . However, these cases provide no support for the conclusion that a victim may enforce the abstract judgment itself without obtaining a lien, especially given that this would contradict the language of 18 USC § 3664(m), explicitly requiring a lien. Petitioner has obtained an abstract of judgment, but never recorded it as a lien on defendant’s property or brought an action to enforce it. … [T]he MVRA does not provide a cause of action for a private victim to enforce an abstract judgment on a restitution order, which is exactly what petitioner is seeking to do. Therefore, petitioner has no standing under the MVRA. Matter of Mikhlov v Festinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 04046, First Dept 5-23-19

 

, , , , ,

UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CONVERSION DOES NOT LIE WHEN PROPERTY INVOLVED IS REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed and noted that a conversion cause of action does not lie where the property involved is real property. The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here. In a nutshell the plaintiffs, to avoid paying a broker’s fee, arranged to have defendants’ deceased father purchase real property on their behalf. Defendants (the Passalacquas) took out a mortgage on the property (Wells Fargo mortgage), in violation of the agreement defendants’ father had with plaintiffs, which plaintiffs paid off when they sold the property. Plaintiffs sought to recover the amount of the mortgage from the Passalacquas under unjust enrichment and conversion theories:

Here, the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that the Passalacquas were unjustly enriched, at the plaintiffs’ expense, by the plaintiffs’ payment of the Passalacquas’ debt to Wells Fargo, and that it would be against equity and good conscience to permit the Passalacquas to retain what is sought to be recovered … . To the extent that the Passalacquas contend that they used proceeds of the Wells Fargo mortgage to benefit the premises, that contention involves factual issues not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law by suing to enforce the consolidated note … . Further, even if the plaintiffs are entitled to assignment of the consolidated note from Wells Fargo, obtaining such an assignment would require an action in equity … . The unjust enrichment cause of action is also not barred by the existence of the plaintiffs’ contract of sale with the Passalacquas’ late father … .

Contrary to the Passalacquas’ contention, advanced as an alternative ground for affirmance … , the unjust enrichment cause of action was timely asserted. The parties agree that the unjust enrichment cause of action is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[1]). Such a cause of action accrues “upon the occurrence of the alleged wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution” … . Here, the amended complaint alleges that the plaintiffs’ payment to Wells Fargo was necessitated by the Passalacquas’ default in making payments on the consolidated note, which resulted in Wells Fargo’s acceleration of the debt and the threat of a foreclosure action. Accordingly, this cause of action accrued, at the earliest, in late 2010, when the Passalacquas stopped making payments on the Wells Fargo consolidated mortgage. Mannino v Passalacqua, 2019 NY Slip Op 03961, Second Dept 5-22-19