Nonetheless, a well-supported motion for summary judgment will not be defeated where the non-moving party merely reasserts factual allegations contained in the pleadings.

Indeed, none of the statements show the challenged “channeling policy;” thus, even if Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations in effect prior to 2006 applies in this case, a reasonable beneficiary may or may not have known of the ...

Nonetheless, until Silian bought its IO certificates more than a decade after they were issued, no IO certificate holder objected to BNY Mellon’s use of the actual, lower interest rates despite the fact that the higher interest rates would ...

Moreover, none of the affirmations submitted by Silian’s counsel made a showing that facts essential to opposing the motion existed, nor, indeed did any of those affidavits even mention disclosure (CPLR 3214[f]; see generally Vincent ...

In the Matter of the Application of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,in its Capacity as Trustee for 278 Residential Mortgage-Backed Securitization Trusts, Index No. 150738/2019 Cohen,J.

For Judicial Instructions Under CPLR Article 77 Concerning the Proper Pass-Through Rate Calculation for CWALTInterest Only Senior Certificates.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the Decision and Order issued by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department and entered in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department on the 8th day of February, 2022.

Mayer Brown LLP, NewYork (Christopher J. Houpt of counsel), for The Bank of New York Mellon, respondent.

), entered on or about May29, 2020, which, insofar appealed from as limited bythebriefs, instructed petitioner Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon) to continue using the actual interest based on the mortgages’ modified interest rates – – – – th Silian’s light of the PSA’s ambiguity, ’s the parties’ a party’s course of conduct could not change its meaning in fact, congruent with the parties’ holding the certificates before Silian’s purchase – – ’s , based on the parties’ mitted by Silian’s counsel made a showing that facts essential to McKinney’s Cons a “ rticle 4”] Corp., 135 AD2d 353, 354 [1st Dept 1987] [the same summary judgmentstandards that apply to actions are also apply to special proceedings brought under CPLRarticle 4]).

As Chief Magistrate Judge Eddy noted previously, “[t]he United States Supreme Court has strongly suggested that a full examination pursuant to the decision in Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.

And the district court never reached these questions precisely because it concluded that Pomerantz's approach to establishing that the investment funds selected by Putnam incurred losses was insufficient as a matter of law.

“When the methodology is sound, and the evidence relied upon sufficiently related to the case at hand, disputes about the degree of relevance or accuracy (above this minimum threshold) may go to the testimony's weight, but not its admissibility.” i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 852 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff'd, 564 U.S. 91, 131 S.Ct.

In addition, Mr. Gleason explained that in his opinion, Dr. Pomerantz also erred in not considering that the net return to the investor is impacted by management fees or rebates, which can vary by state, agreement and jurisdictional requirements.

According to Defendant, his testimony is “inadmissible because it purports to summarize the contents of all Solutions Matrices, documents that speak for themselves and that he himself has not reviewed; it parrots data and opinions offered by Plaintiffs’ other expert [Dr. Pomerantz], without validating or expanding on either; and it opines on BNY Mellon’s ultimate liability.” (ECF No. 205 at 2).