, ,

THE FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CAUSES OF ACTION INVOLVED CONNECTICUT PROPERTIES AND WERE TIME-BARRED IN CONNECTICUT; NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE RENDERED THE ACTIONS TIME-BARRED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent-conveyances causes of action should have been dismissed as time-barred under New York’s borrowing statute. The properties which were conveyed are in Connecticut and the action is time-barred under Connecticut law:

Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred pursuant to CPLR 202, New York’s borrowing statute. Under CPLR 202, where a nonresident plaintiff asserts causes of action in a New York court, “the claim must be timely under both New York and the jurisdiction where the action accrued” … . “Consequently, . . . it is the shorter of the two states’ statutes of limitations that controls the timeliness of the action” … . For purposes of CPLR 202, “a cause of action accrues at the time and in the place of the injury” and “[w]hen an alleged injury is purely economic, the place of injury is usually where the plaintiff resides and sustains the economic impact of the loss” … .

Here, plaintiff is a resident of Connecticut and alleges only economic injury. Moreover, it does not dispute that, under Connecticut law, where the claims accrued for purposes of the borrowing statute, the statute of limitations for the asserted causes of action has expired (see Conn Gen Stat § 52-552j …). National Auditing Servs. & Consulting, LLC v Assa, 2023 NY Slip Op 03198, First Dept 6-13-23

Practice Point: Causes of action which accrued in another state must be timely under both that state’s and New York’s statutes of limitations.

 

, ,

IN THIS SUIT BY A NEW JERSEY CASINO TO RECOVER DEFENDANT’S GAMBLING DEBT, DEFENDANT RAISED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING PLAINTIFF CASINO VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY’S CASINO CONTROL ACT (CCA); THE CONTROLLING AGENCY, THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION (CCC), HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE COMPLAINTS; THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE RULED ON BEFORE THE COURT CAN CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the plaintiff, a New Jersey casino (Golden Nugget), was not entitled to summary judgment this action seeking to recover defendant’s (Chan’s) $200,000 gambling debt. Defendant had raised affirmative defenses based upon complaints alleging the dice used by the casino violated the Casino Control Act (CCA) which defendant filed with the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE). The Casino Control Commission has primary jurisdiction over those complaints. Therefore the complaints must be ruled upon before summary judgment can be considered by the court:

Supreme Court’s granting of summary judgment to plaintiff was premature. The motion court should instead have deferred any decision until receipt of DGE’s ruling on Chan’s “patron complaint” based on the same violations, since that grievance was filed prior to the commencement of plaintiff’s litigation and remained pending at the time of its decision. While DGE has ruled that the same scribing violations against another casino do not violate the CCA, there has been no ruling by DGE in any matter concerning defendant’s allegations of “non-transparent dice.” Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied, with leave to renew upon a ruling by DGE on the “patron complaint,” or after six months if DGE has failed to resolve this issue despite sufficient notice to DGE by the parties … . Golden Nugget Atl. City LLC v Chan, 2023 NY Slip Op 02176, First Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: Here a New Jersey sued defendant to recover a $200,000 gambling debt. Defendant raised violations of New Jersey’s Casino Control Act as affirmative defenses. Because New Jersey’s Casino Control Commission has primary jurisdiction over those complaints, they must be ruled on before the court can consider the casino’s summary judgment motion.

 

, ,

WHEN PURELY ECONOMIC INJURY IS ALLEGED, THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES; HERE PLAINTIFF RESIDED IN FLORIDA AND, PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, THE FLORIDA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED, RENDERING THE FRAUDULENT-TRANSFER ACTION UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the borrowing statute required that the Florida statute of limitations for an action alleging the fraudulent transfer of property be applied, rendering the action time-barred. Plaintiff, a Florida resident, alleged the transfer of property in New York, by defendant, a New York resident, was fraudulent in that it rendered the defendant judgment proof. The Third Department determined the injury occurred in Florida, not New York:

… [T]he parties dispute the applicability of CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing” statute, which … provides that “[w]hen a nonresident sues on a claim that accrued outside of New York, the cause of action must be commenced within the time period provided by New York’s statute of limitations, as well as the statute of limitations in effect in the jurisdiction where the cause of action in fact accrued” … . “[A] cause of action accrues at the time and in the place of the injury . . . in tort cases involving the interpretation of CPLR 202” … . Relevant here, “[w]hen an alleged injury is purely economic, the place of injury usually is where the plaintiff resides and sustains the economic impact of the loss” … .

While plaintiff asks that we draw a distinction between tort and contract matters as it pertains to the principle that locates his economic harm — and thus accrual of his various causes of action — in his state of residence, we find little support for that premise. Although the tortious act may have occurred when the property was transferred in this state, that does not establish that the accompanying injury to plaintiff was also felt in this state or that the cause of action accrued here … . Erdely v Estate of Airday, 2023 NY Slip Op 01827, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff, a Florida resident, alleged defendant, a New York resident, fraudulently transferred New York property, making defendant judgment proof. Because plaintiff alleged purely economic injury (the inability to collect money judgments), the injury occurred where plaintiff resided. Therefore, pursuant to New York’s borrowing statute, the Florida statute of limitations applied, rendering the action untimely.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS OBTAINED A NEW JERSEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THREE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE; PLANTIFFS NEED ONLY SERVE ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs, who obtained a New Jersey default judgment against three defendants, need only serve one of the defendants in this action to enforce the foreign judgment:

In October 2013, the plaintiffs contracted with the defendant Tirepool, LLC … for the purchase of a used car. The contract was negotiated by the defendants Jeff Massicott and Vivian Wallace, the owners/managers of Tirepool. The defendants breached the contract and retained the plaintiffs’ down payment. … [T]he plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter the New Jersey action). The defendants failed to answer the complaint, and the plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendants in the principal sum of $26,548.32. …

CPLR 1501 provides: “Where less than all of the named defendants in an action based upon a joint obligation, contract or liability are served with the summons, the plaintiff may proceed against the defendants served, unless the court otherwise directs, and if the judgment is for the plaintiff it may be taken against all the defendants.” Here, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the judgment in the New Jersey action and, therefore, the plaintiffs are permitted to proceed against Wallace without effectuating service on the other defendants.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment in lieu of complaint insofar as asserted against Wallace. Obed v Tirepool, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here there was a foreign default judgment against three defendants who are jointly and severally liable. Plaintiffs only served one of the defendants with a summons in lieu of complaint to enforce the foreign judgment. Plaintiffs did not need to serve the other two defendants and could proceed against the defendant who was served.

 

RECOVERY OF A $280,000 SETTLEMENT PURPORTEDLY PAID TO DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF IS BARRED BY THE STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PROTECTION ACT WHICH REQUIRES COURT APPROVAL PRIOR TO PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint seeking to recover settlement funds ($280,000) purportedly made to the defendants should have been dismissed. The settlement was never approved by a court in violation of the Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA) (General Obligations Law 5-1701):

… [D]efendants demonstrated that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, on the ground that the plaintiff’s claims are prohibited by the SSPA. Enacted in 2002, the purpose of the SSPA … was to establish “procedural safeguards for those who sell settlements that are awarded as a result of litigation,” due to a recognition that “[m]any of the people who receive such settlements are being compensated for very serious, debilitating injuries, and have been unfairly taken advantage of in the past by the businesses that purchase their settlements” … . “Under this law, transfers such as the one at issue are prohibited unless approved by a court of competent jurisdiction based upon express findings … that the transfer is in the best interest of the payee and that the discount rate, fees and expenses used to determine the net amount advanced are fair and reasonable” (… General Obligations Law § 5-1706). In circumstances … where payment for a structured settlement transfer is made to the payee prior to the court’s approval of the transfer, whether intentionally or due to a mistaken belief that the transfer had already been approved, a proposed transferee must seek nunc pro tunc approval of the transfer, and such approval is not guaranteed … . Pinnacle Capital, LLC v O’Bleanis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01540, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: The Structured Settlement Protection Act (General Obligations Law 5-17-1 et seq) requires court approval of structured settlements. If, as here, there was no court approval before plaintiff purportedly paid the funds to defendants, the plaintiff seeking to recover the funds from the defendants may be out of luck.

,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION RELIED ON EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT AN ACTION FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT BY SUMMONS IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 (FOURTH DEPT),

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s cause of action was not for the payment of money only (CPLR 3213) for which a summons in lieu of  a complaint was an appropriate vehicle:

As proof of the agreement to reduce defendant’s liability under the guaranty and the amount of that reduction, plaintiff relies on evidence extrinsic to the instrument consisting of representations in the affidavit of its chief operating officer, deposit receipt printouts from the online system of plaintiff’s bank, and a guaranty balance chart apparently generated by plaintiff showing the calculation of defendant’s revised liability.

In our view, “[g]oing that far afield from the [financial] instrument itself does not appear to comport with the simple standards” embodied in the statute and related case law … . Indeed, inasmuch as plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that outside evidence beyond “simple proof of nonpayment or a similar de minimis deviation from the face of the document[s]” is needed to determine the amount due, we conclude that “[p]laintiff’s action falls far short of satisfying the [CPLR] 3213 threshold requirement” … . Counsel Fin. II LLC v Bortnick, 2023 NY Slip Op 01441, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff relied on extrinsic evidence. The action was not, therefore, for the “payment of money only” within the meaning of CPLR 3213 and was not properly brought by a summons in lieu of complaint.

 

, ,

THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF COLLATERAL TO THE MAJORITY LENDERS WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED TO THE MINORITY LENDERS IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS IN THIS PRIVATE FORECLOSURE; THE MINORITY LENDERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the breach of contract claims by the minority lenders against the majority lenders and a collateral agent should not have been dismissed. Collateral was sold to the majority lenders but the proceeds were not distributed to the minority lenders in the manner required by the credit and security agreements. The opinion is fact-specific and far too complex to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he pro rata sharing provisions required that all minority lenders receive pro rata treatment of their debt obligations, which meant that the proceeds of the sale of the collateral (notes and equity) should have been distributed to all secured lenders pro rata in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement. … While the Collateral Agent, as directed by the majority lenders, was authorized to define the terms, conditions, and limitations of how the restructuring sale should be carried out, the reorganization had to be for the pro rata benefit of all those holders of secured debt, including minority lenders. Thus, the minority lenders have the right to object to the restructure sale conducted through credit bidding based upon the failure to provide them adequate protection of their pro rata interest on the foreclosed collateral. AEA Middle Mkt. Debt Funding LLC v Marblegate Asset Mgt., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01157, First Dept 3-7-23

Practice Point: This comprehensive opinion concerns a private foreclosure of collateral and the distribution of the proceeds to the majority and minority lenders pursuant to complex credit and security agreements.

 

, ,

THE ACTION BY PLAINTIFF SELLER TO RECOVER ON A SECURITY INTEREST IN COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN TAKEN OUT BY THE BUYER AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE BARRED BY THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT WHICH ASSIGNED PRIORITY TO TWO OTHER SECURITY INTERESTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the language of a so-called standstill provision barred the action by plaintiff Intrepid seeking to recover a security interest in collateral for the $28.7 million loan taken out by the buyer, Selling Source, as consideration for the purchase. Plaintiff was a third priority lender and the standstill agreement provided plaintiff could not seek a remedy until payment was made to the first and second priority lenders:

… Selling Source agreed to acquire a number of Internet businesses from plaintiff Intrepid. In partial consideration, Selling Source executed a $28.7 million junior secured promissory note … . …

In connection with the transaction, the parties executed an intercreditor and subordination agreement (ICA) delineating the priority of each party’s security interest in the collateral pledged by the guarantors. Plaintiff, as the “third priority representative” of the “third priority lenders,” received third priority liens as security for the repayment of the $28.7 million note … .

The ICA contains standstill provisions that circumscribe Intrepid’s ability to exercise its remedies in the event of a default by Selling Source, providing, inter alia, that “[n]o Third Priority Lender shall commence or exercise any Remedies in respect of any default or event of default. . . until such time as the Payment-in-Full of the First Priority Obligations and Second Priority Obligations” … . * * *

This action is barred by the plain language of the standstill provision, which states that “[n]o Third Priority Lender shall commence or exercise any Remedies in respect of any default or event of default . . . until such time as the Payment-in-Full of the First Priority Obligations and Second Priority Obligations” … . Intrepid Invs., LLC v Selling Source, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00396, First Dept 1-31-23

Practice Point: Here priority was assigned to those holding security interests in collateral for a loan taken out by the buyer as consideration for the purchase. The plaintiff seller was a third priority lender. The seller’s action to recover on its security interest was barred by standstill agreement which did not allow the seller to seek a remedy until the payment of the first and second priority lenders.

 

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A BAR OWNED AND OPERATED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WERE NOT MET; THE OVER $2,000,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court after a non-jury trial awarding plaintiff over $2,000,000, determined plaintiff was not entitled to pierce the corporate veil to hold defendant Traina, the sole member of defendant limited liability company (LLC), personally liable. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the bar owned and operated by the LLC and was awarded a default judgment:

Generally, a member of a limited liability company cannot personally be held liable for any debts, obligations or liabilities of the limited liability company, “whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise” (Limited Liability Company Law § 609[a]). The concept of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, permitting, in certain circumstances, the imposition of personal liability on members for the obligations of the limited liability company … . ” … [G]enerally . . . piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation [or LLC] in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the [party seeking to pierce the corporate veil] which resulted in [the party’s] injury” … . * * *

… [A]lthough Traina did not observe all corporate formalities, the evidence established that he ran a real business, with employees, customers, and vendors, and the petitioner presented no evidence that the LLC was undercapitalized or that Traina commingled the assets of the LLC with his own or used corporate funds for personal use … . … w[W]ile the petitioner demonstrated that Traina exercised complete domination and control over the LLC, he failed to show that Traina’s actions, including abandoning certain fixtures and equipment to his landlord, were for the purpose of leaving the LLC judgment proof or to perpetrate a wrong against the petitioner … .  … [P]etitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish that there was a basis to pierce the corporate veil … . Matter of DePetris v Traina, 2022 NY Slip Op 07232, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: The criteria for piercing the corporate veil in this personal injury action against a bar owned and operated by a limited liability company were not met. The over $2,000,000 judgment against the sole member was reversed.