Statute of Limitations for a Put-Back Action
ABS Update / Put-Back Actions / Statute of Limitation/Laches

Statute of Limitations for a Put-Back Action

On June 21, 2022, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. EquiFirst Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op. 31953(U). In this decision, Justice Chan addresses a question left unanswered by the Court of Appeals in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Barclays Bank PLC, in which it held that the statute of limitations for put-back claims brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. was four years, because that was the statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim in California, where Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. is located. Continue reading Statute of Limitations for a Put-Back Action

RMBS Certificateholder Lacked Capacity to Sue Sponsor
ABS Update / Commercial Case Notes / Put-Back Actions / Standing / Statute of Limitation/Laches

RMBS Certificateholder Lacked Capacity to Sue Sponsor

On July 2, 2022, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Freedom Trust 2011-2 v. DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op. 32096(U), dismissing a put-back brought by a certificateholder of an RMBS trust, with the trustee’s permission, against the trust’s sponsor because (1) the certificateholder lacked capacity under the trust’s no-action clause and (2) the claims were in any event time-barred. Continue reading RMBS Certificateholder Lacked Capacity to Sue Sponsor

Court Looks to Plaintiff’s Place of Business, not its Place of Incorporation, in Applying New York’s Borrowing Statute
Commercial Case Notes / Statute of Limitation/Laches

Court Looks to Plaintiff’s Place of Business, not its Place of Incorporation, in Applying New York’s Borrowing Statute

On June 1, 2022, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op. 31751(U), looking to a plaintiff’s place of business, not its place of incorporation, in applying New York’s borrowing statute . . . Continue reading Court Looks to Plaintiff’s Place of Business, not its Place of Incorporation, in Applying New York’s Borrowing Statute

Where Defendant Has a Continuing Duty, The Statute of Limitations for Breaching That Duty Starts Anew Each Day the Defendant is in Breach
Commercial Case Notes / Statute of Limitation/Laches

Where Defendant Has a Continuing Duty, The Statute of Limitations for Breaching That Duty Starts Anew Each Day the Defendant is in Breach

On May 11, 2022, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Irma C. Pollack LLC v. OP Dev. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op. 31541(U), holding that where a defendant had a continuing duty to act, the statute of limitations for breaching that duty starts anew each day the defendant is in breach . . . Continue reading Where Defendant Has a Continuing Duty, The Statute of Limitations for Breaching That Duty Starts Anew Each Day the Defendant is in Breach

GOL 17-105, Not GOL 17-101, Applies to the Question of When an Obligation Under a Mortgage is Revived
Commercial Case Notes / Contracts / Statute of Limitation/Laches

GOL 17-105, Not GOL 17-101, Applies to the Question of When an Obligation Under a Mortgage is Revived

On May 24, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in Batavia Townhouses, Ltd. v. Council of Churches Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03361, holding that GOL 17-105, not GOL 17-101, governs whether the statute of limitations has been tolled or revived in an action to foreclose a mortgage . . . Continue reading GOL 17-105, Not GOL 17-101, Applies to the Question of When an Obligation Under a Mortgage is Revived

Client’s Claim Against its Lawyers for Failing Timely to File a Patent Application Accrues When the Client’s Application Becomes Untimely
Commercial Case Notes / Statute of Limitation/Laches

Client’s Claim Against its Lawyers for Failing Timely to File a Patent Application Accrues When the Client’s Application Becomes Untimely

On January 6, 2022, the First Department issued a decision in Morgan & Mendel Genomics, Inc. v. Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op. 00048, holding that a client’s claim against its lawyers for failing timely to file a patent application accrues when the client’s application becomes untimely . . . Continue reading Client’s Claim Against its Lawyers for Failing Timely to File a Patent Application Accrues When the Client’s Application Becomes Untimely