§Why CasetextPricing

Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2, by HSBC Bank USA, National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee, et al., Respondents,v.Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Appellant. (And Three Other Actions.)

Brief

18 Cited authorities

  1. Reiss v. Financial Performance Corporation

    97 N.Y.2d 195 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 374 times
    Holding courts "may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing."

  2. Metropolitan Life v. Noble Lowndes

    84 N.Y.2d 430 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 222 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding proof that “defendant's repudiation of the Agreement was motivated exclusively by its own economic self-interest” is insufficient to show willful misconduct

  3. Rm 14 FK Corp. v. Bank One Trust Co., N.A.

    37 A.D.3d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 88 times
    Rejecting contractual interpretation that "vitiates the principle that a contract should not be interpreted so as to render any clause meaningless"

  4. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi v. Kvaerner

    243 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 91 times
    Stating that "the clause relied upon by plaintiff is one of merely general application and, pursuant to a countervailing rule of contract construction, if there is an inconsistency between a general provision and a specific provision of a contract, the specific provision controls."

  5. Muzak Corp. v. Hotel Taft Corp.

    1 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1956)   Cited 268 times
    Holding that the specific provision trumped the general provision, even in the absence of any inconsistency between those provisions

  6. Ronnen v. Ajax Elec. Corp.

    88 N.Y.2d 582 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 78 times

    Argued June 6, 1996 Decided July 9, 1996 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, L. Paul Kehoe, J. Nixon, Hargrave, Devans Doyle, LLP, Rochester ( Francis E. Kenny of counsel), for Deborah Ronnen and others, appellants. Gough, Skipworth, Summers, Eves Trevett, Rochester (Kenneth Bersani and Thomas M. VanStrydonck of counsel), and Bilgore, Reich, Levine, Kroll Kantor for Bruce Lipsky and another, appellants. Woods, Oviatt, Gilman, Sturman Clarke LLP

  7. Ace Sec. Corp. v. DB Structured Prods., Inc.

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 4873 (N.Y. 2015)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that claims for breach of contract accrued when the misrepresentations were made—the original purchase date—rather than on the date the seller refused to repurchase

  8. Ambac Assurance Corp. v. EMC Mortgage LLC

    121 A.D.3d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ambac, the Court expressly held that MLPA § 7 (xx) was "essentially the same warranty" as the warranty in section 8 addressing the accuracy of information in the prospectus supplements regarding the mortgage loans.

  9. Jade Realty LLC v. Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2005-EMG

    83 A.D.3d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 19 times
    In Jade Realty, the trial court added the words “prepayment or” before the word “default” in the mortgage note to address a situation where the added words apparently represented a missing trigger or reference date for calculating the yield maintenance amount (i.e., a prepayment fee) when the mortgagor decided to prepay the mortgage note.

  10. Mom's Bagels of New York, Inc. v. Sig Greenebaum Inc.

    164 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 35 times

    August 23, 1990 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.). Mom's Bagels of New York, Inc. (Mom's) owns and operates a restaurant in New York County. In December 1986, pursuant to a written contract (invoice), Mom's purchased a special type of commercial oven (oven), known as a Bago Rack Oven, from Sig Greenebaum Inc. (Greenebaum), a distributor of bakery equipment, for $20,995. At the time of purchase, Mom's contends that Greenebaum represented that the oven had been