Latest news with #AppellateDivision
Miami Herald
09-07-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Legal Dispute Arises Over Satisfied Mortgage in Queens Foreclosure Case
A New York foreclosure case involving a previously satisfied mortgage led to a key Appellate Division ruling. The court upheld the rights of a third-party property owner to intervene and rejected the bank's insufficient evidence. Petroff Amshen LLP, serving as Foreclosure Defense Attorneys, secured a critical procedural victory and defended the integrity of recorded satisfactions. NEW YORK CITY, NY / ACCESS Newswire / July 8, 2025 / Imagine transferring a property years after a mortgage is officially marked "satisfied"-only to be pulled back into court when a bank claims it was all a mistake. That's the legal trap a New York buyer faced in a recent foreclosure dispute, one where Petroff Amshen LLP stepped in to defend ownership, title integrity, and consumer protection. The Mortgage That Shouldn't Have Been There In 2003, a home equity line of credit was issued for a residential property in Queens Village. Over a decade later, the bank-the successor to the original lender-recorded a satisfaction of mortgage, formally signaling that the debt was resolved. But in 2016, the bank initiated a foreclosure action against the property, claiming that the satisfaction had been filed in error. By that point, the home had already been transferred to a third party who purchased it in good faith, relying on the public record. What The Court Actually Said In a recent decision from the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, the court addressed multiple core issues, ruling in favor of the current owner and affirming the legal boundaries banks must follow when disputing satisfied mortgages. The decision also underscores the role of experienced Foreclosure Defense Attorneys in protecting property owners when procedural errors or unsubstantiated claims threaten their legal rights. Key rulings included: The third-party buyer had the right to intervene in the foreclosure case as the current legal bank failed to submit sufficient admissible evidence to override the public court raised factual issues regarding residency status, leaving the door open for consumer protections under RPAPL bank could not establish standing to bypass standard foreclosure notice requirements. Why This Case Matters To Property Owners And Buyers If a mortgage can be "un-discharged" years after being marked satisfied, without concrete proof, any homeowner or property investor is at risk. The court's position highlights the importance of trusting recorded satisfactions and ensuring that banks meet their legal burden. "A satisfaction of mortgage is more than paperwork-it's the legal conclusion of a debt," said Steven Amshen, Founding Partner of Petroff Amshen LLP. "We fought to ensure that banks cannot undo their own filings just because they changed their minds years later." Petroff Amshen LLP: Defending The Finality Of Title Petroff Amshen LLP represented the third-party buyer in the appeal, challenging the foreclosure and preserving title rights that had been lawfully acquired. As Foreclosure Defense Attorneys, the firm emphasized: The legal presumption created by recorded mortgage satisfactionsThe lender's failure to present verifiable factsThe importance of statutory compliance in foreclosure proceedings The case affirms the right of consumers and buyers to rely on official public filings-and the power of legal intervention when those records are contested. Legal Closure Means Legal Peace This decision reinforces the role of Foreclosure Defense Attorneys not only in stopping sales, but in upholding ownership rights and legal certainty in cases involving administrative errors or record conflicts. Petroff Amshen LLP advises homeowners and buyers to seek legal counsel immediately if they receive notice of foreclosure involving a previously satisfied mortgage. Stay connected with Petroff Amshen LLP for legal alerts and victories: Instagram: @petroffamshen Facebook: Petroff Amshen LLP LinkedIn: Petroff Amshen LLP | New York SOURCE: Petroff Amshen LLP press release
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kenneth Chesebro, ‘architect' of pro-Trump 2020 fake elector scheme, disbarred in N.Y.
The Republican efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election were multifaceted, but among the strikingly partisan tactics was the fake electors scheme: GOP officials and operatives in key states created forged election materials and sent the documents to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Archivist (among others) as if the materials were legitimate. They were not. Though the relevant players didn't know it at the time, the controversy has become one of the most consequential political scandals in a generation, racking up indictment totals unseen since Watergate and Iran-Contra. The man widely credited as the 'architect' of that scheme is still confronting the consequences of his misjudgment. The Hill reported: Ex-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who helped devise President Trump's alternate electors strategy in 2020, has been disbarred in New York. A panel of judges on the Appellate Division — New York's midlevel appeals court — ruled Thursday that Chesebro's guilty plea in Georgia's probe of efforts to subvert the state's 2020 election results qualifies as a 'serious crime,' a finding that begets disciplinary action. The judicial panel didn't pull any punches, concluding that Chesebro's guilty plea on one felony count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents was 'unquestionably serious' and reflected on his 'integrity and fitness to continue engaging in the practice of law in New York.' They added that the Republican's misconduct undercut 'the very notion of our constitutional democracy that he, as an attorney, swore an oath to uphold.' It was nearly two years ago when Chesebro, among others, was first indicted in Georgia as part of the Republican effort to overturn the state's election results. It was those charges that led to a plea deal, which in turn has led to his disbarment in New York. But this does not bring an end to his saga: Chesebro is still facing criminal charges in Wisconsin as part of his role in implanting the Badger State's fake electors scheme. Because both the Georgia and Wisconsin cases relate to state charges, a presidential pardon wouldn't help him. Indeed, it's worth appreciating the unusual nature of the broader circumstances: Chesebro is still being punished for trying to overturn the results of a free and fair American election, while Trump — who went even further to try to overturn that same election — was rewarded with the presidency. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
The Hill
26-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Ex-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro disbarred in New York
Ex-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who helped devise President Trump's alternate electors strategy in 2020, has been disbarred in New York. A panel of judges on the Appellate Division — New York's midlevel appeals court — ruled Thursday that Chesebro's guilty plea in Georgia's probe of efforts to subvert the state's 2020 election results qualifies as a 'serious crime,' a finding that begets disciplinary action. The panel wrote that Chesebro's guilty plea on one felony count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents is 'unquestionably serious.' 'On that basis alone, respondent's conduct brings into question his integrity and fitness to continue engaging in the practice of law in New York,' the decision reads. But the former lawyer's conduct went a step further, the panel said, undercutting 'the very notion of our constitutional democracy that he, as an attorney, swore an oath to uphold.' 'Given the testimony and evidence produced at the hearing, we conclude that respondent should be disbarred based on his conviction of a serious crime,' they wrote. Chesebro pleaded guilty in the Georgia case in 2023 — a plea he's unsuccessfully tried to invalidate — narrowly avoiding becoming the first of dozens of defendants to go to trial over efforts to keep Trump in power after he lost the 2020 presidential election in the state. Trump himself faces several criminal charges in the case, which has been on hold since Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's office was booted from prosecuting the case. Her office has appealed that decision. Chesebro helped craft the so-called 'fake electors' scheme that pushed to certify slates of Trump supporting electors in battleground states instead of the true electoral votes for former President Biden. He initially faced seven felony counts, including the state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act charge with which all defendants were charged. The allegations against him primarily reflected his efforts to organize the pro-Trump electors. Alternate electors convened in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin — all states won by Biden that election. The fake electors claimed without basis that they were 'duly elected' electors, and criminal charges have since been filed in several of those states. Chesebro's New York law license was suspended last fall. He still faces criminal charges in Wisconsin over his role there in the scheme. Several other Trump lawyers who were charged in connection with the alternate electors plan have faced disciplinary action or disbarment for their roles, as well.
Singapore Law Watch
17-06-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
Goh Jin Hian judgment clarifies scope of directors' duties, notes observers as ruling says directors should be a ‘sentinel', not a ‘sleuth'
Goh Jin Hian judgment clarifies scope of directors' duties, notes observers as ruling says directors should be a 'sentinel', not a 'sleuth' Source: Business Times Article Date: 17 Jun 2025 Author: Ranamita Chakraborty Observers say judgment offers practical guidance by narrowing the scope of when a director should be held liable for inaction. Former Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP) non-executive director Goh Jin Hian's recent win in his appeal in the Appellate Division of the High Court has given 'welcome relief' to other company directors with its clarification of the scope of directors' duties. The Appellate Division in a judgment on Jun 5 overturned a previous ruling requiring Goh to pay damages of US$156 million to the insolvent marine fuel supplier after IPP's liquidators had accused him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director'. 'Welcome relief' Adrian Chan, first vice-chair at the Singapore Institute of Directors (SID) and head of corporate at Lee & Lee, said the successful appeal was a 'welcome relief' as it clarifies the boundaries of a director's responsibilities and what qualifies as actionable 'red flags'. The judgment, he added, offers practical guidance by narrowing the scope of when a director should be held liable for inaction. Had the lower court's judgment stood, Chan believes directors could face liability even when unaware of fraud committed by peers or when financial reports show no warning signs. Kelvin Law, associate professor of accounting at Nanyang Technological University's Nanyang Business School, said that the case demonstrated that correlation does not equal causation – a mere link is insufficient. He said: 'This case is a powerful reminder that a link isn't enough as a plaintiff must prove that the director's specific failure was the direct cause of the financial loss. To obtain damages, (the) plaintiff has to show that there's a causal relationship between negligence and damage.' Boey Swee Siang, partner at law firm RPC, pointed out that while Goh's failure to be aware of the cargo trading business constituted a breach of his duty of care, the court clarified that the 'red flags' identified by the company's liquidators were insufficient to trigger an inquiry into its financials. In Goh's case, he was only required to satisfy himself within reasonable limits regarding the company's financial position. 'The non-executive director is not required to make exhaustive inquiries into individual transactions or events, so long as these transactions or events were not, on their face, of such a nature as would raise immediate concerns,' added Boey. Yee Chia Hsing, an independent director at several Singapore Exchange-listed companies, agreed with the judgment, saying directors cannot be expected to be better than auditors and there is a right to presume no fraud unless clear warning signs exist. 'If (there is a) need to presume fraud, a lot of resources and effort would be wasted across the entire system as directors would need to be commissioning forensic investigations from auditors on a regular basis specifically to detect fraud,' he told BT. The court ruled that although Goh breached his duty of care by failing to stay informed about IPP's cargo trading operations, this breach was not due to ignoring red flags within the company. 'Get their hands dirty' Still, SID's Chan emphasised that directors, including non-executive ones, have a duty to guide and monitor management, going beyond mere compliance. He said: 'They have to ask tough questions, roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty. Rather than playing the role of a mere sentinel, sleuth, investigator or watchdog... a director should more appropriately look upon himself or herself as an active steward – sometimes being called upon to play all these roles and more, as the circumstances and director duties demand it.' The judgment's reference to '(a) director may be a sentinel, but he is not a forensics investigator or a sleuth' resonated with Chan, who stressed that directors cannot simply stand watch passively. 'There really is no such thing as a 'sleeping director' as a director's duty to act in the best interest of the company is an active one that doesn't ever go to sleep,' he added. RPC's Boey believes this decision serves as a reminder to independent directors of listed companies that 'they do owe a duty of care to their companies, but also sets the standard of care to a reasonable one'. Directors and officers liability insurance Beyond training, Nanyang Business School's Prof Law highlighted the importance of having directors and officers liability insurance. 'It provides the financial resources to defend themselves – which, as this case shows, can be a long and expensive process even if they are ultimately successful,' he added. Chan also advised directors to read 'the fine print, exclusions, coverage, territory, and ensure that the scope and size of the sum assured is appropriate for the size of the business'. He pointed to several high-profile cases involving non-executive directors under investigation or charged for failing to disclose material, price-sensitive information – including Hyflux, Eagle Hospitality Trust, Raffles Education and Cordlife. 'The outcomes of these cases will bring further clarity to the role of directors on listed boards, and will help shape corporate governance in Singapore,' he added. Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
06-06-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
Ex-IPP director Goh Jin Hian wins appeal, court says firm failed to prove his breach caused losses
Ex-IPP director Goh Jin Hian wins appeal, court says firm failed to prove his breach caused losses Source: Straits Times Article Date: 06 Jun 2025 Author: Grace Leong The court concluded that this was a case of 'a deep-seated fraud'. The Appellate Division of the High Court has found Goh Jin Hian, a former director of insolvent marine fuel supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP), is not liable to pay US$146 million (S$187.9 million) plus interest in compensation for losses suffered by the firm. In overturning a lower court ruling that found Goh was not entitled to relief from liability, the Appellate Division wrote: 'While we agree with the (High Court) judge that Dr Goh had breached the care duty by reason of his ignorance of the cargo trading business, IPP has failed to show... that the breach caused the loss in question.' Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, served as a director of IPP from June 28, 2011 to Aug 12, 2019. The court clarified that 'it cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are telltale warning signs'. A 63-page ruling delivered on June 5 by Justice Kannan Ramesh, a judge of the Appellate Division, stated: 'A director may be a sentinel, but he is not a forensics investigator or a sleuth, unless there are signs that would put him on inquiry.' The other two judges presiding were justices Tay Yong Kwang and Woo Bih Li. 'It does not follow that where a director has fallen asleep at the wheel, any or all losses occasioned to the company during the slumber should be vested on the director. Where the director has breached the duty of care, skill and diligence, the burden is on the company to prove that the breach has caused the loss suffered by the company,' the court ruled. Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi of TSMP Law Corporation, who represented Goh, noted that the latest decision is an important clarification on the law of the duties of directors. 'Dr Goh has always maintained that his conduct caused no avoidable loss to IPP, and we believe he has been vindicated. This is an important decision that has practical implications for all directors,' said Mr Thio, who acted for Goh with Ms Nanthini Vijayakumar, a partner of TSMP Law. Deloitte & Touche, IPP's judicial managers turned liquidators, had sued Goh to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director', and failing to discover and stop drawdowns in trade financing between June and July 2019 to fund alleged non-existent or sham transactions. IPP alleged that Goh failed to act reasonably in the face of three 'red flags' – an audit confirmation request signed by Goh specifying receivables allegedly owed by Mercuria Energy Trading to IPP, the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence, and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Goh and sent to Maybank. High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah had found that Goh was not entitled to relief from liability because of 'the egregiousness of his breaches of duty, chief among which was his ignorance as to IPP's cargo trading business' – a 'vehicle of fraud' that had 'disastrous consequences' for the company. 'It was through his combination of misfeasance and nonfeasance, in failing to even be aware of IPP's cargo trading business, that the fraudsters were able to use IPP's cargo trading business as a vehicle of fraud in the first place,' Justice Aedit said in his grounds of decision in July 2024. Goh had appealed against the ruling in February 2024 that found him liable for breach of director's duties and statutory duties and losses suffered by IPP. In allowing Goh's appeal, the Appellate Division found that the three purported red flags IPP relied on 'were not in fact red flags that would have put Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered, and the loss thereby averted'. The court concluded that this was a case of 'a deep-seated fraud'. Although Goh was not aware of the cargo trading business, the court ruled that 'it does not follow that if Goh had been aware of the cargo trading business, he would have discovered the fraud and thereby put a stop to it'. The court ruled: 'There is no suggestion by IPP there were any, apart from the 'red flags', which we have concluded were not in fact red flags. Further, there was no allegation that the auditor and IPP's financial manager alerted Goh of any issues with the accounts, or that the monthly management accounts and financial statements suggested anything untoward. 'Thus, there is nothing to the point that if Goh had been aware of the cargo trading business, he would have exercised oversight in a manner which would have picked up the fraud and averted the loss.' Mr Thio said: 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and duties of care to a company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud. This acknowledges the complex commercial realities that directors often operate in.' Mr Terence Quek, chief executive of the Singapore Institute of Directors, noted that the High Court's decision 'was alarming to the general director community as it suggested that directors of all stripes can be held personally liable for losses caused by fraud committed by other directors'. 'That is likely to have caused concern to many executive and non-executive directors in MNC (multinational corporation) subsidiaries (and) family-owned companies,' he said. 'This decision provides much welcome clarity on the true scope of directors' duties in a private company. The ruling recognises that while directors must exercise care and diligence, they cannot be held personally liable for every act of misconduct – particularly when committed by others under difficult-to-detect circumstances,' he added. 'But the judgment is also sobering, as it recognised that Goh did breach his director duties.' Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] SGHC(A) 7 Print
