You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

TERMINATION SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE, TEACHER SUGGESTED STUDENTS’ ANSWERS ON A STANDARDIZED TEST MIGHT BE WRONG.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined a teacher’s assisting several students on a standardized test did not warrant termination:

While petitioner’s behavior in suggesting to several students that some of their answers might be wrong demonstrated a lapse in judgment, petitioner did not provide the students with the correct answers and there is no evidence that the incident was anything but a one-time mistake … . Prior to her termination in October 2014, petitioner, a tenured teacher who had worked for respondent since 2003, had an unblemished record and, as the OSI investigator testified, was considered to be a good teacher … . Moreover, the record is devoid of evidence that would suggest petitioner could not remedy her behavior. Matter of Bolt v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2016 NY Slip Op 08158, 1st Dept 12-6-16

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (TERMINATION TOO SEVERE A SANCTION, TEACHER SUGGESTED STUDENTS’ ANSWERS ON A STANDARDIZED TEST MIGHT BE WRONG)/TEACHERS (TERMINATION TOO SEVERE A SANCTION, TEACHER SUGGESTED STUDENTS’ ANSWERS ON A STANDARDIZED TEST MIGHT BE WRONG)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (TEACHERS, TERMINATION TOO SEVERE A SANCTION, TEACHER SUGGESTED STUDENTS’ ANSWERS ON A STANDARDIZED TEST MIGHT BE WRONG)/STANDARDIZED TESTS (TERMINATION TOO SEVERE A SANCTION, TEACHER SUGGESTED STUDENTS’ ANSWERS ON A STANDARDIZED TEST MIGHT BE WRONG)

,

THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.

The First Department determined defendant was not deprived of his right to call his codefendant as a witness. Although he strongly expressed his wish to do so, defense counsel properly exercised professional judgment in deciding against calling the witness:

“If defense counsel solely defers to a defendant, without exercising his or her professional judgment, on a decision that is for the attorney, not the accused, to make because it is not fundamental, the defendant is deprived of the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him or her” … . Whether to call a witness is a strategic decision to be made by defense counsel … . Moreover, counsel had a sound reason for not calling the codefendant, who, in his plea allocution, had implicated defendant in the drug sale. To the extent defendant is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, that claim is likewise without merit … . People v Sheard, 2016 NY Slip Op 08186, 1st Dept 12-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL, THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL.

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to hearing on his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction. Defendant alleged he was erroneously told he would not be deported if he pled guilty to a drug sale, but could be deported if convicted after trial:

This case presents factual issues requiring a hearing into whether defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel under People v McDonald (1 NY3d 109 [2003]) by way of erroneous and prejudicial immigration advice. Defendant alleges that his attorney erroneously advised him that if he pleaded guilty to a drug sale count with a sentence of probation, he would not be subject to deportation, but if he refused the plea offer, proceeded to trial and lost, he would go to prison and then be deported. Defendant’s claim is corroborated, to some extent, by statements made to present counsel by the attorney who represented defendant at the time of the plea … . The standard “no other promises” disclaimer in defendant’s plea allocution does not, as a matter of law, defeat his claim of erroneous legal advice. This case warrants a hearing at which defendant may establish the advice he actually received regarding the deportation consequences of his plea. …

This case also warrants a hearing on the prejudice prong of defendant’s claim. Defendant made a sufficient showing to raise an issue of fact as to whether he could have rationally rejected the plea offer under all the circumstances of the case, including the serious consequences of deportation and his incentive to remain in the United States … . Further, defendant sufficiently alleges that if immigration consequences had been factored into the plea bargaining process, counsel might have been able to negotiate a different plea agreement that would not have resulted in automatic deportation. People v Santos, 2016 NY Slip Op 08169, 1st Dept 12-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/INEFFECTICE ASSISTANCE (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, LADDER KICKED OUT FROM UNDER HIM.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. There was evidence the ladder kicked out from under plaintiff. There was no need to show the ladder was defective. It was enough the ladder was not secured:

Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim through witnesses’ testimony that the ladder from which he was descending suddenly kicked out to the left, resulting in his fall … . Contrary to the motion court’s finding, plaintiff was not required to demonstrate that the ladder was defective in order to satisfy his prima facie burden … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff was not responsible for setting up the ladder, and there was no testimony establishing the existence of any other readily available, adequate safety devices at the work site … . Furthermore, given the undisputed testimony that the ladder kicked out because it was unsecured, the testimony that plaintiff unsafely descended from the ladder by carrying pipe fittings in his arms established, at most, “contributory negligence, a defense inapplicable to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim” … . Fletcher v Brookfield Props., 2016 NY Slip Op 08105, 1st Dept 12-1-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, LADDER KICKED OUT FROM UNDER HIM)/LADDERS (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, LADDER KICKED OUT FROM UNDER HIM)

,

THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) finding that petitioner’s (mother’s) child was in imminent danger of harm was not supported by the evidence. Petitioner was caught shoplifting (wearing clothes under her clothes). At the time her five-year-old son was with her, and he too was wearing clothes under his clothes. The shoplifting charges were reduced to a violation and the record was sealed. Petitioner had no other contact with the criminal justice system. The child was deemed well cared for and happy. The issue was whether the petitioner’s name should be maintained on a list (“indicated” child abuse) which will make it difficult for her to continue her career in child care:

Under New York’s child protective scheme, a report of suspected child abuse or neglect will be marked “indicated” if the local agency determines after investigation that there is “some credible evidence of the alleged abuse or maltreatment” (Social Services Law § 412[7]). All childcare agencies and other agencies licensed by the state to provide certain services to children are required to inquire whether applicants for employment or to become foster or adoptive parents are subjects of indicated reports (Social Services Law § 424-a). An agency may choose to hire or approve persons on the list of those with indicated reports, but if it does, the agency must “maintain a written record, as part of the application file or employment record, of the specific reasons why such person was determined to be appropriate” for approval (Social Services Law § 424-a[2][a]). The names of subjects of indicated reports remain on the list until 10 years after the youngest child referred to in the report turns 18, unless earlier expunged (Social Services Law § 422[6]). * * *

… [T]he ALJ’s determination that petitioner’s actions were reasonably related to a position in childcare, the field of study petitioner is pursuing, was not rational. The legal standards for determining whether a child is maltreated … are repeated in the Guidelines. The ALJ failed to set forth his consideration of the relevant Guidelines for making such a determination, many of which, as the motion court pointed out, weighed in petitioner’s favor, including factors 2 (the seriousness and extent of any injury to child), 3 (harmful effect on the child of the subject’s actions or inactions), 5 (time since most recent incident of maltreatment), 6 (number of indicated incidents of abuse or maltreatment), 8(a) (whether the acts have been repeated), and 10 (whether reported behavior involved serious injury to, or death of, a child). The single factor the ALJ discussed, factor 8(b), “any information produced . . . in regard to . . . rehabilitation,” failed to consider that all of the evidence at the hearing indicated that petitioner has never been convicted of any crime…; no further [shoplifting] incidents had occurred; petitioner had no prior history with ACS (NYC Administration for Children’s Services); all of her family members interviewed expressed surprise at her behavior on the occasion leading to the report; and she told the caseworker she had “learned her lesson.” Matter of Natasha W. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2016 NY Slip Op 08099, 1st Dept 12-1-16

FAMILY LAW (FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE)/SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (CHILD ABUSE, FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE)/CHILD ABUSE (FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE)/CHILD CARE (FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE)

CUSTODY AWARD REVERSED, FACTORS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON BY FAMILY COURT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL. 

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother, not father, should be awarded sole legal custody of the child:

The Family Court Judge presiding over the trial of this complex and long-running custody matter was clearly concerned with the child’s best interests and wrestled with concerns about the mother’s history of mental health issues, and the effect on the child of a “temporary” award of custody to the father, issued years prior to assignment of the case to the trial judge. However, a thorough review of the record does not provide a sound and substantial basis for the award of custody to the father, and requires an award of custody to the mother. * * *

In its award of custody to the father, the Family Court erred in several respects. First, it gave substantial weight to the fact that the father had temporary custody of the child for four years and nine months. This fact should not have been a basis, without more, for a final custody award. * * *

Secondly, the Family Court gave excessive weight to the parties’ financial circumstances, noting that their finances favored the father because the father works, and the mother is unemployed and receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI). * * *

Third, there is no support for the Family Court’s finding that the neutral forensic evaluator “made an initial superficial assessment of the parties at the commencement of his evaluative process, cast his lot with [the mother], and worked from that point to present his findings in her favor.” * * *

Fourth, Family Court’s concern about the mother’s mental health history is understandable, but its conclusions disregard crucial evidence and its determination is not in the child’s best interests. In March 2015, when the trial was completed, the mother was in remission, had not been hospitalized since November 2010, and, in the five years since then, had been compliant with treatment by her psychiatrist and therapist. * * *

Fifth, [the child’s]  close relationship to her siblings, all of whom reside with her mother, also weighs in favor of awarding custody to the mother, since “the stability and companionship to be gained from keeping the children together is an important factor for the court to consider” in making a custody determination …, because “[y]oung brothers and sisters need each other’s strengths and association in their everyday and often common experiences, and to separate them, unnecessarily, is likely to be traumatic and harmful” … . …

Finally, Family Court improperly considered this a relocation case, governed by Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]). However, since there has been no prior custody order, Tropea does not govern, and relocation should have been considered as one factor in determining the child’s best interests … . Matter of Michael B. (Lillian B.), 2016 NY Slip Op 08101, 1st Dept 12-1-16

 

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY AWARD REVERSED, FACTORS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON BY FAMILY COURT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL)/CUSTODY (CUSTODY AWARD REVERSED, FACTORS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON BY FAMILY COURT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL)

,

COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING ENTITLEMENT TO A NONDISCRETIONARY BONUS PRECLUDED BY TERMS OF EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the terms of the employee handbook, signed by the plaintiff, precluded counterclaims alleging an oral promise to pay an annual bonus:

The operative employee handbook stating, inter alia, that bonuses were paid at the sole discretion of plaintiff, and the acknowledgment of the handbook’s terms signed by defendant, conclusively refute the counterclaims based on the alleged oral promise to pay an annual nondiscretionary bonus … .

Nor was the discretionary bonus policy modified by the alleged oral agreement. As defendant’s acknowledgment makes clear, “[N]o supervisor, manager or other representative of [plaintiff] has the authority to make any verbal promises, commitments, or statements of any kind regarding the Company’s policies, procedures, or any other issues that are legally binding on the Company.”

The quasi-contractual counterclaims based on the alleged agreement are likewise precluded by the discretionary bonus policy … .

The alleged oral promise to pay acquisition proceeds, however, was not established to be a “bonus” within the scope of the discretionary bonus policy. The complaint alleges that the promised payment was not performance-based, but was an inducement to keep defendant from quitting … . The breach of contract counterclaim based on this alleged promise is nonetheless barred because the promise was not in writing, as required by the broad language of the acknowledgment … .

The quasi-contractual counterclaims, to the extent predicated on an alleged agreement to pay acquisition proceeds, likewise fail. Such claims require an element of reasonable reliance on a promise, a reasonable expectation of compensation, or an inequity, all of which are negated where, as here, the plaintiff receives adequate compensation and signed a written acknowledgment confirming the fact that no representative of plaintiff had authority to make legally binding verbal promises … . Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc. v Frischer, 2016 NY Slip Op 08100, 1st Dept 12-1-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING ENTITLEMENT TO A NONDISCRETIONARY BONUS PRECLUDED BY TERMS OF EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK)/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING ENTITLEMENT TO A NONDISCRETIONARY BONUS PRECLUDED BY TERMS OF EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK)/BONUSES (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING ENTITLEMENT TO A NONDISCRETIONARY BONUS PRECLUDED BY TERMS OF EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK)

, ,

FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED.

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from a Baker’s scaffold that had no side rails. Although hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion, the motion will not be defeated by hearsay alone (the case here). The court noted that the plaintiff’s unsigned deposition transcript was properly considered because it was certified by the reporter, its accuracy was not challenged by the defendant, and plaintiff adopted it as accurate by submitting it:

Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim where he fell from a six-foot-high Baker’s scaffold, which he was directed to use in order to plaster a ceiling. The record shows that the scaffold “had no side rails, and no other protective device was provided to protect him from falling off the sides” … . …

… [T]he statement in the affidavit of [defendant’s] owner that a subcontractor had assured him that the subcontractor had instructed all his employees to use the lifeline, belt and harness is insufficient raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff may be the sole proximate cause for disregarding such an instruction … . While hearsay may be considered in opposition to defeat a summary judgment motion if it is not the only evidence upon which opposition to the motion is predicated, because it was the only evidence establishing that plaintiff disregarded an instruction to use the safety devices, it is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion … . Chong v 457 W. 22nd St. Tenants Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07997, 1st Dept 11-29-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SCAFFOLDS (FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)

SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff fell from a scaffold which did not have safety railings. Any comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part (not locking the wheels) was irrelevant:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim by presenting undisputed evidence that he “fell off a scaffold without guardrails that would have prevented his fall” … . Plaintiff’s alleged “failure to use the locking wheel devices and his movement of the scaffold while standing on it” were at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Celaj v Cornell, 2016 NY Slip Op 07996, 1st Dept 11-29-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/SCAFFOLDS (SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

, ,

MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined (1) plaintiff’s misrepresentation cause of action was properly dismissed because of a lack of specificity in the allegations, (2) the cause of action should not have been dismissed with prejudice, (3) and the specificity provided in the appellate briefs may support an amended complaint. Plaintiff, a stock insurance company, alleged it was induced to insure collateralized debt obligations (CDO’s) by misrepresentations made by Bear Stearns:

[P]laintiff CIFG Assurance North America, Inc., a stock insurance company, alleges that Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., a predecessor of defendant J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, made material misrepresentations that induced CIFG to provide financial guaranty insurance in connection with two collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). According to CIFG, Bear Stearns had on its books a large number of high-risk residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs), and embarked on a scheme to rid itself of these toxic assets by offloading them into the two CDOs, and marketing the CDOs’ securities to investors. * * *

… [T]he claim should not have been dismissed with prejudice, but rather, CIFG should be given the opportunity to replead. A request for leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given, and denied only if there is prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay, or if the proposed amendment is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law” … . CIFG Assur. N. Am., Inc. v J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08029, 1st Dept 11-29-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (STOCK INSURANCE, MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)/SECURITIESMISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE/FRAUD (MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)/COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS (MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES  (MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)

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