Asset Securitization Corp. v. Orix Capital Markets, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Asset Securitization Corp. v. Orix Capital Markets, LLC

12 A.D.3d 215, 784 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13146

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 215 (Asset Securitization Corp. v. Orix Capital Markets, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Asset Securitization Corp. v. Orix Capital Markets, LLC, 12 A.D.3d 215, 784 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered April 28, 2004, which, upon the prior grant of defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The governing Pooling Service Agreement (PSA), relating to a commercial mortgage-backed securities transaction in which plaintiff issued and sold Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, does not authorize plaintiff to commence litigation on behalf of the certificateholders. That authority is committed solely to the trustee of the pooled loans, which is not a party to this action (see LaSalle Bank N.A. v Nomura Asset Capital Corp., 180 F Supp 2d 465, 471 [SD NY 2001]). Accordingly, since plaintiff is without standing under the PSA to sue on the certificateholders’ behalf and has failed to allege a valid contractual or extracontractual claim on its own behalf, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered April 28, 2004, which, upon the prior grant of defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The governing Pooling Service Agreement (PSA), relating to a commercial mortgage-backed securities transaction in which plaintiff issued and sold Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, does not authorize plaintiff to commence litigation on behalf of the certificateholders. That authority is committed solely to the trustee of the pooled loans, which is not a party to this action (see LaSalle Bank N.A. v Nomura Asset Capital Corp., 180 F Supp 2d 465, 471 [SD NY 2001]). Accordingly, since plaintiff is without standing under the PSA to sue on the certificateholders’ behalf and has failed to allege a valid contractual or extracontractual claim on its own behalf, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 215, 784 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asset-securitization-corp-v-orix-capital-markets-llc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack