Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2005, Barclays Bank PLC, a major global bank based in the United Kingdom, and BDC Finance LLC, a Connecticut-based hedge fund, entered into a series of transactions that were memorialized in several forms, including a Master Agreement. In 2008, Barclays sent BDC a letter terminating the Agreement due to BDC’s alleged default. BDC filed this action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Barclays counterclaimed alleging corresponding causes of action. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Appellate Division granted BDC’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Barclays breached the agreements and was not entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaims. The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the Appellate Division, holding that material issues of fact existed as to whether Barclays defaulted under the parties’ contract and, thus, neither party was entitled to summary judgment. View "BDC Finance LLC v. Barclays Bank PLC" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the “separate entity” rule continues to be valid law and serves to prevent a judgment creditor from ordering a garnishee bank operating branches in New York to restrain a judgment debtor’s assets held in foreign branches of the bank. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified this question of law to the New York Court of Appeals. Plaintiff, the judgment creditor in this case, asked the Court of Appeals to disavow the separate entity doctrine as outmoded and unnecessary. Defendant, the garnishee bank, urged that the rule remains vital in the context of international banking. The Court of Appeals answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that the separate entity remains valid, and thus, a judgment creditor’s service of a restraining notice on a garnishee bank’s New York branch is ineffective under the separate entity rule to freeze assets held in the bank’s foreign branches. View "Motorola Credit Corp. v Standard Chartered Bank" on Justia Law

Corporation, which owned corporate operating accounts at Bank, took out a loan and line of credit. Corporation passed a corporate resolution providing that unless it notified Bank within fourteen days of an improperly paid item in order to recover the payment, Bank would not be held liable for any error in Corporation’s account. Corporation later discovered that its bookkeeper had been forging signatures on certain Bank documents and had embezzled approximately $386,000 over the course of two years. Corporation sued Bank to prevent Bank from forcing repayment on the loans. Bank counterclaimed to recover amounts due under the loans. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Bank, concluding that a bank and its customer may agree to shorten from one year to fourteen days the statutory time period under N.Y. U.C.C. Law 4-406(4) within which the customer must notify its bank of an improperly paid item in order to recover the payment thereon. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) a customer and bank can contractually reduce section 4-406(4)’s one-year limitations period; and (2) shortening the one-year period to fourteen days was not manifestly unreasonable under the facts of this case. View "Clemente Bros. Contracting Corp. v Hafner-Milazzo" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a transaction between a bank located in United Arab Emirates and a partnership which had its headquarters in Saudi Arabia. The bank sued the partnership to collect an alleged debt and chose to do so in New York Supreme Court. The partnership filed a third-party complaint against a citizen of Saudi Arabia (“citizen”) and a bank headquartered in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The citizen moved to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens. After the issue was briefed and argued at Supreme Court, the court dismissed both the complaint and the third-party complaint on forum non conveniens grounds. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that VSL Corp. v. Dunes Hotels & Casinos, Inc. prohibited the dismissal of the main action on forum non conveniens grounds in the absence of a motion seeking that relief and that the dismissal of the third-party complaint was an abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) VSL did not bar Supreme Court from dismissing the complaint under the circumstances of this case; and (2) Supreme Court was correct as a matter of law in dismissing both the complaint and the third-party complaint. View "Mashreqbank PSC v. Ahmed Hamad A1 Gosaibi & Bros. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in these cases were judgment debtors whose bank accounts were frozen by judgment creditors in anticipation of enforcement of a money judgment pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 52. Plaintiffs brought putative class actions in federal court seeking injunctive relief and money damages against their banks on the grounds that their bank accounts were restrained in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA), which requires banks, when served with restraining notices by judgment creditors, to forward certain notices and forms to judgment debtors. In these cases, the banks allegedly failed to send the required forms. The district courts granted the banks' motions to dismiss, concluding that the EIPA does not imply a private right of action. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals, which answered by holding (1) a private right to bring a plenary action for injunctive relief and money damages cannot be implied from the EIPA; but (2) a judgment debtor can secure relief from a bank arising from a violation of the EIPA in an Article 52 special proceeding. View "Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

This mortgage foreclosure action arose from a failed redevelopment of a hotel complex. The complex consisted of several interconnected properties, including the hotel property, a tower building, and another building. The lender for the redevelopment and numerous mechanic's lienors dispute the priority of their respective claims to the proceeds from the foreclosure sale of the tower building. At issue before the Court of Appeals was N.Y. Lien Law 22, which subordinates a building loan mortgage made pursuant to an unfiled building loan contract to subsequently filed mechanic's liens. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) the loan agreement made with the lender was a building loan contract, but the lender's mortgage was not entitled to first priority because the lender never filed the loan agreement; and (2) the lender was entitled to priority with respect to the loan proceeds used to refinance the existing mortgage, as the subordination penalty did not apply in this circumstance. View "Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower, LLC" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth of the Northern Marina Islands obtained two tax judgments in the U.S. district court against the Millars for unpaid taxes. The Millards, who previously resided in the Commonwealth, relocated before the Commonwealth was able to obtain the judgments. The Commonwealth commenced proceedings as a judgment creditor asseking a turnover order against garnishees holding assets of the Millars. The Commonwealth named a Canadian bank (Bank) headquartered in Toronto, with a branch in New York, as a garnishee under the theory that the Millards maintained accounts in a foreign subsidiary of Bank. The district court denied the Commonwealth's motion for a turnover order against Bank. The Court of Appeals accepted certification to answer questions of law, holding (1) for a court to issue a post-judgment turnover order pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5225(b) against a banking entity, the entity itself must have actual, not merely constructive, possession or custody of the assets sought; and (2) therefore, it is not enough that the banking entity's subsidiary might have possession or custody of a judgment debtor's assets. View "Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce" on Justia Law

M&T Real Estate Trust foreclosed on commercial mortgages executed by Defendant. After a public auction, the referee sold M&T the property. M&T's attorney twice declined to accept or retain physical possession of the referee's deed dated May 11, 2010. As a result, the referee took back the deed and other closing documents and ultimately executed a deed on August 9, 2010 when M&T's attorney accepted it on behalf of MAT Properties, Inc. The deed was recorded on August 17, 2010. M&T subsequently filed a motion seeking to confirm the referee's report of sale and enter a deficiency judgment. Defendants argued that M&T's request for a deficiency judgment was untimely. The county court granted M&T's motion, determining that it was timely under the relevant ninety-day period because the consummation of the sale occurred on August 9, 2010 and was recorded on August 17, 2010. The appellate division reversed, concluding that the ninety-day period commenced in May 2010 upon the delivery of the referee's deed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that M&T's motion was timely because it was brought within ninety days after the date of the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the deed to the purchaser on August 9, 2010. View "M&T Real Estate Trust v. Doyle" on Justia Law

Following the collapse of two investment vehicles known as SIV-Lites, Oddo Asset Management (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. (collectively, Barclays), and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., claiming aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The appellate division affirmed, concluding (1) the collateral managers of the SIV-Lites did not have a contract or relationship with Plaintiff such as would give rise to an underlying fiduciary duty, and (2) Plaintiff's tortious interference claim failed because Plaintiff did not allege an actual breach of the underlying contract. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the collateral managers appointed to oversee the assets of the SIV-Lites did not owe a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, and (2) Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for tortious interference with contract. View "Oddo Asset Mgmt. v. Barclays Bank PLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and breach of contract where the gravamen of the complaint was that defendant mismanaged the portfolio of an entity whose obligations plaintiff guaranteed. At issue was whether the Martin Act, General Business Law art 23-A, preempted plaintiff's common-law causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence. The court agreed with plaintiff that the Martin Act did not preclude a private litigant from bringing a nonfraud common-law cause of action where the Martin Act did not expressly mention or otherwise contemplate the elimination of common-law claims. View "Assured Guar. (UK) Ltd. v J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgt. Inc." on Justia Law