Voluntary Discontinuance and the Statute of Limitations; DHCR's Discretion: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Scott Mollen discusses "HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Nicholas," and "71st Props. LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal."
March 12, 2024 at 02:06 PM
15 minute read
Foreclosures—Voluntary Discontinuance of Action in 2011 Did Not "Reset The Statute of Limitations"—Loan Documents Did Not Vest Plaintiff With "Right to Unilateral De-Acceleration"—No Violation of the Contracts Clause Since No Contract Provision Was "Substantially Modified By Retroactive Application of FAPA"—No Common-Law Implied Right to Unilateral Revocation Existed Before 'Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Engel'—Prior to 'Engel,' Court of Appeals Never Addressed Whether Voluntary Discontinuance or Stipulation Which Did Not Discuss De-Acceleration or Readiness To Accept Installment Payments De-Accelerated Indebtedness—Engel Acknowledged Absent Precise Provision in Operative Documents, There Was "No Clear Rule" as to Whether Right Existed—Mortgage Industry "Has Been Subject to Regular and Robust Legislative Regulation" –Statute of Limitations Accrued in 2008 and More Than Six Years Transpired Before Subject Action Commenced –– Motion To Dismiss Granted
A plaintiff sought to foreclose a mortgage. The mortgagor allegedly defaulted in paying the loan in December 2007. A bank commenced an action to foreclose the mortgage on July 25, 2008. In that action, the plaintiff asserted that it had "elected to declare the entire principal balance due and owing."
On May 4, 2011, the parties stipulated to discontinue the action pursuant to CPLR §3217. The stipulation provided, inter alia, that the "statute of limitations (SOL) for any claims of plaintiff or defendant against the other is hereby tolled from July 22, 2008, the date of the summons hearing, until June 1, 2013, whether or not they have been previously pled."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDistressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250