From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PSW NYC LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 25, 2017
150 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

05-25-2017

PSW NYC LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., etc., et al., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants.

Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York (Stephen B. Meister of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Venable LLP, New York (Gregory A. Cross of counsel), for respondents-appellants.


Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York (Stephen B. Meister of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Venable LLP, New York (Gregory A. Cross of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered on or about November 1, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for defendants' breach of an assignment agreement in which plaintiff sold and assigned to defendant PCV–M Holdings LLC all of its rights relating to and in certain loans (see e.g. Ull v. Lerner, 308 A.D.2d 396, 396, 764 N.Y.S.2d 432 [1st Dept.2003] ). The complaint fails to identify any provision of the agreement in which defendants promised to abide by a separate agreement governing foreclosure rights relating to the loans or giving plaintiff rights to assert claims relating to those loans after the assignment.

Plaintiff's fraudulent inducement claim is barred by the assignment agreement's mutual release (see Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d 269, 276, 929 N.Y.S.2d 3, 952 N.E.2d 995 [2011] ) and by the integration clause in the assignment agreement and in the release (see e.g. General Bank v. Mark II Imports, 293 A.D.2d 328, 328–329, 741 N.Y.S.2d 201 [1st Dept.2002] ). In any event, plaintiff failed to plead its claim with the requisite particularity (see CPLR 3016[b] ; see e.g. Gregor v. Rossi, 120 A.D.3d 447, 447, 992 N.Y.S.2d 17 [1st Dept.2014] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

TOM, J.P., SWEENY, RICHTER, KAPNICK, WEBBER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

PSW NYC LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 25, 2017
150 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

PSW NYC LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Case Details

Full title:PSW NYC LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. Bank of America, N.A.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 25, 2017

Citations

150 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
150 A.D.3d 601
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 4207

Citing Cases

Doctors Allergy Formula, LLC v. Valeant Pharm. Int'l

However, an exception to this rule is made where parties include in their contract a specific disclaimer of…

Fast Track Constr. Sys. v. Turken Found.

New York courts have routinely upheld the dismissal of fraudulent inducement claims based on merger clauses…