Hayes v. Assets Recovery Center Investments, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Assets Recovery Center Investments, LLC

126 A.D.3d 486, 2 N.Y.S.3d 797

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2015

Docket14483 104217/11

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 486 (Hayes v. Assets Recovery Center Investments, 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

Hayes v. Assets Recovery Center Investments, LLC, 126 A.D.3d 486, 2 N.Y.S.3d 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendants definitively showed that they were the holders of the mortgage loan at the time plaintiff entered into the release through the MERS Milestones printout (see generally Matter of MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine, 8 NY3d 90 [2006]). Plaintiff failed to show that the bringing of a foreclosure action was a breach of the parties’ mutual release, where that release expressly reserved defendants’ right to bring such a proceeding. Finally, defendant lM’s bringing a holdover proceeding against *487 plaintiffs subtenant, which it withdrew in the face of the subtenant’s motion to dismiss, was not a breach of the release’s promise that 1M would negotiate a one year lease with plaintiff. In light of these findings, plaintiffs claims for fraud in the inducement and breach of the release should have been dismissed. This necessitated the dismissal of the alter ego and conspiracy claims as well.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendants definitively showed that they were the holders of the mortgage loan at the time plaintiff entered into the release through the MERS Milestones printout (see generally Matter of MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine, 8 NY3d 90 [2006]). Plaintiff failed to show that the bringing of a foreclosure action was a breach of the parties’ mutual release, where that release expressly reserved defendants’ right to bring such a proceeding. Finally, defendant lM’s bringing a holdover proceeding against *487 plaintiffs subtenant, which it withdrew in the face of the subtenant’s motion to dismiss, was not a breach of the release’s promise that 1M would negotiate a one year lease with plaintiff. In light of these findings, plaintiffs claims for fraud in the inducement and breach of the release should have been dismissed. This necessitated the dismissal of the alter ego and conspiracy claims as well.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 486, 2 N.Y.S.3d 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-assets-recovery-center-investments-llc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack