Search Results

Baptiste were duly served with post-judgment subpoenas by Plaintiff- judgment creditor for both testimony

suit against defendant for age discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Labor Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. That clause provided: The rights and obligations of the parties under the provisions of this Agreement termination of Executive's employment with the Company for any reason or any settlement of the financial rights

Litigation of residential mortgage foreclosure actions in New York remains prevalent at the trial and appellate court levels.  Issues related to residential mortgage foreclosure are frequently treated in this Blog. ( Here , here , here , here and here .) It is not uncommon for an individual faced with the prospect of losing a home to foreclosure, to file a bankruptcy petition on the eve of a foreclosure sale in an effort to stop the sale.  Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code , provides that the filing of a bankruptcy petition “operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of…the commencement or continuation … of a judicial … or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title….”  (11 U.S.C. 362(a)(1).)  There is no doubt that the filing of a bankruptcy petition, in general, operates to stay mortgage foreclosure actions.  See Lubonty v. U.S. Bank National Association , 159 A.D.3d 962 (2d Dep’t 2018). The stay of a foreclosure sale frequently serves a legitimate purpose consistent with the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code.  Many times, however, the opposite is true and, in such cases, the Bankruptcy Code has some built in protections to prevent abuse.  One such provision of the Bankruptcy Code, known as “Three Strike Rule”, provides that: If a single or joint case is filed by or against a debtor who is an individual under this title, and if 2 or more single or joint cases of the debtor were pending within the previous year but were dismissed, other than a case refiled under a chapter other than Chapter 7 after dismissal under section 707(b), the stay under subsection (a) shall not go into effect upon the filing of the later case. 11 U.S.C. 362(c)(4)(A)(i). In USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Gotsch (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. May 10, 2018) ( here ), the Court relied on this provision to deny the mortgagor defendant’s request that the court invalidate the foreclosure sale of residential real property that he owned (the “Property”). The facts in Gotsch are simple. Gotsch borrowed $350,000 from plaintiff and secured the obligation to repay the resulting note with a mortgage on the Property.  When Gotsch defaulted in the repayment of the loan, USAA commenced a residential foreclosure action. Gotsch defaulted in answering the complaint and failed to appear at the scheduled foreclosure settlement conference.  Both of plaintiff’s subsequent motions, for an order of reference and then for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, were granted on default. On the day of the first foreclosure sale, Gotsch filed a petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code that stayed the sale (the “First Bankruptcy”).  The First Bankruptcy was dismissed a few months later.  A second foreclosure sale was scheduled and, on the day that it was to occur, Gotsch filed his second petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Second Bankruptcy”).  The Second Bankruptcy was dismissed two months later. A third foreclosure sale was scheduled and, on the day it was to occur, Gotsch filed a third petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Third Bankruptcy”). Despite Gotsch’s “bald” allegation that he notified the lender’s attorney, and that his realtor notified the foreclosure sale referee, of the filing of the Third Bankruptcy, the scheduled sale went forward, and the subject property was sold at public auction.  Within a few weeks of the foreclosure sale, Gotsch moved by Order to Show Cause (the “OSC”) to “invalidate the foreclosure sale” based on, inter alia , violations of the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.  The OSC contained a temporary restraining order prohibiting, inter alia , the transfer of the Property. The several arguments were made in opposition to the motion.  The lender argued that, by virtue of the Three Strike Rule, there was no automatic stay in place upon the filing of the Third Bankruptcy because there were “two or more bankruptcy cases … pending against within the previous year were dismissed….”  It was also argued that because there was ample evidence in the record that Gotsch did not reside at the Property, he would not be prejudiced or irreparably harmed if the sale was sustained. The Third Bankruptcy was dismissed within two months of the filing of the OSC. Relying on the Three Strike Rule and Second Department authority interpreting same, the Gotsch court held that there was no automatic stay in effect on the day of the third foreclosure sale.  The Court also held that there was no evidence to set aside the sale using its “broad equitable powers” that could be invoked in the face of “fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct cast doubt on the fairness of the sale.”  The Court further found that “the evidence suggests that three bankruptcy filings, each one initiated on the same day as a scheduled Foreclosure Sale, were brought simply to delay the sale of the subject property and may fairly be characterized as an abuse of the legal system.”  (Citations omitted.)

arbitrate or construing an arbitration clause, courts and arbitrators must “give effect to the contractual rights to give effect to contractual limitations, and when doing so, courts and arbitrators must not lose sight not be subject to vacatur for ordinary errors, even if an arbitrator’s legal and procedural rulings might to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any other misbehavior by which the rights Official Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. of Bayou Grp. , 758 F. Supp. 2d 222, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

the plain terms of the note, repayment was conditioned on a demand, and the lender had no enforceable right pursuant to a contract, the cause of action accrues when the [party making the claim] possesses a legal right to demand payment.’” [7]  However, “‘when the right to final payment is subject to a condition, the Until that demand is made, the lender generally has no right to sue for nonpayment. Because no demand was made until September 11, 2023, the plaintiff had no enforceable right to payment

Wright , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06833 (1st Dept. At the center of the controversy is defendant Albert Wright (“Wright”), a homeowner who claimed he was Thereafter, Petrokansky allegedly assured Wright that he could prevent foreclosure, preserve Wright’s Wright”. Credit Union v. Saar , 39 Misc. 3d 850, 855 (Sup.

The contract provided that: This Agreement and the rights granted hereunder may not be assigned by either Eight months after entering into the contract, Corp. merged with Whitson’s Food Services, LLC (“LLC”) Similarly, the defendant argued that it had not consented to any assignment of Corp.’s contract rights

reviewed and ‘ articular words should be considered, not as if isolated from the context, but in the light demonstrated, prima facie, that the parties’ contract clearly and unambiguously provided him with a unilateral right LLC operating agreement unambiguously provide that a deceased member’s estate shall have all of the rights a member for the purpose of settling or managing its estate, which would include a member’s voting rights

The issue in Stolzman concerned the scope of a shareholder’s right under a lease to replace an air conditioning Air Conditioning in accordance with all applicable legal requirements” and specified that the granted rights assurances to any prospective buyers or plaintiff concerning the air conditioning unit and reserved the right a declaratory judgment that the 2002 license agreement gave him and his successors and assigns the right limited to a 10-year term and for so long as the original lessee held title to the proprietary lease, the rights

The Court rejected the argument, holding that Kapitus had standing to bring the action in its own right facia entitlement to summary judgment as Kapitus Servicing, as a contracting party, generally has a right limited liability company’s failure to fully comply with the filing requirements does not impair the right Their reading also eviscerates plaintiff’s right to receive an entire year of payments before removing Additionally, the Court held that “Kapitus … indisputably had the right to bring suit on TVT’s behalf

collective bargaining agreement) governing when the employer can fire the employee, the employer has the right Freiberger Haber LLP counsels both individuals and employers regarding their legal rights related to

Haber An operating agreement is the primary document that establishes the rights, powers, duties, liabilities agreement governed the dispute and, pursuant to that agreement, the parties had agreed to waive their right agreement contained an option to purchase in favor of Cackovic, which gave Cackovic the irrevocable right it, “pursuant to paragraph 3.5(d) of the operating agreement, the members of TZ Vista waived their right termination, dissolution, or liquidation of .’” “ ven if the members of TZ Vista had not waived their right