”="de-acceleration”" theory.  The statute of limitations begins to run anew on the entire debt upon acceleration.  For any number of reasons, a lender may wish to revoke its election to accelerate and de-accelerate a As with an acceleration notice, “the de-acceleration of note balances must also be clear and unambiguous ">   An interesting aspect of the Court’s analysis on issues such as acceleration, de-acceleration and

New York’s Limited Liability Company Law § 607 limits the remedies available to a creditor when the judgment obtaining a judgment against respondent for $1,903,366.57 in a related action. In that action, petitioner was seeking to enforce that judgment against respondent directly. enforcement when the judgment debtor is an LLC member rather than the LLC itself. limits enforcement to the judgment debtor’s economic interests only.

There was no stay of claims, no moratorium on lawsuits, and no bar to creditors seeking judgments. Concerned that any judgment might be difficult to collect, especially in light of the restructuring of The company alleged breach of the letter of credit and sought a pre‑judgment attachment, asking the motion Governing Standards To obtain or confirm a pre‑judgment order of attachment under New York law, a plaintiff In short, Olam reaffirms that pre‑judgment attachment is designed to prevent abusive asset flight, not

, 2024 ( here ), the court was asked to hold certain successor entities liable for the unsatisfied judgment (“Judgment”) issued by the motion court in plaintiff’s favor and against non-party Grace Apparel LLC As discussed below, the motion court declined to grant summary judgment in either party’s favor, holding Grace failed to pay the Judgment, ceased its operations as a wholesale and private-label garment manufacturer analysis, the motion court held that there was a question of fact preventing the grant of summary judgment

Defendants later moved for summary judgment , seeking dismissal of, inter alia , the fraud causes of the motion court “properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment Takeaway In Davidoff , the Second Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the strength of

June 18, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, addressed the scope of the business judgment claims against the individual board members, finding that their conduct was protected by the business judgment and other tortious conduct were sufficient to survive dismissal and were not barred by the business judgment They further argued, inter alia, that their actions were protected by the business judgment rule and Such conduct, said the motion court, was subject to the business judgment rule.

In 2017, the motion court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale (“JFS”). The Court stated that CPLR 5523 permits an “appellate court reversing or modifying a final judgment [ to] order restitution of property or rights lost by the judgment.” , as the judgment here was not found void. and granted the purchaser’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Money judgments recorded in a county in which the judgment debtor owns real property, however, are only to extend the lien of the judgment on real property for an additional 10-year period. a renewal judgment up to one year prior to the expiration of the original judgment so as to avoid the creditor awaiting a renewal judgment after the expiration of the original judgment.  The defendant subsequently moved to vacate the original judgment and the renewal judgment, which motion

Blum, a case involving the sufficiency of proof submitted on lender’s motion for summary judgment.[3] Wilmington Savings commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage and, subsequently, moved for summary judgment RPAPL 1304 notices were not served or were improperly served, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment respect to its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment

Haber In past articles, we have examined a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint under CPLR CPLR § 3213, “ hen an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment , the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting judgment at the outset of the litigation. that its “action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment.”

Second Department affirmed the dismissal of veil piercing claims against the individuals of a corporate judgment prior action commenced by plaintiffs against EMF to recover on the note, plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against EMF, Ferrante, and Schoeman pursuant to CPLR article 52 to, among other things, enforce the judgment Plaintiffs sought to pierce EMF’s corporate veil and enforce the default judgment against Ferrante and The Individual Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against

Haber It has long been the law that the business judgment rule applies to the decisions made by boards “The business judgment rule ‘bars judicial inquiry into actions of corporate directors taken in good rule, and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment and attorneys’ fees . Plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment as to liability pursuant to CPLR 3212. because their decision was protected by the business judgment rule .