Jordan N. Potasky

The plaintiff moved for judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement purportedly executed following a pre-trial conference regarding a dispute over beneficial ownership of two condominium properties.

The defendants opposed, arguing they did not agree to transfer the property as a trustee to a beneficial owner and felt pressured to sign.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record deficient and conflicting, with three different versions of the Minutes of Settlement presented and no direct evidence from the plaintiff confirming his signature.

A trial was directed to determine whether a binding settlement agreement was actually reached.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate borrower and its personal guarantor after the borrower defaulted on a $100,000 loan.

The defendants argued the bank breached its duty of good faith and fiduciary duty by failing to explain the loan terms and by calling the loan despite the borrower bringing arrears current.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no fiduciary duty existed, the bank acted reasonably and in good faith in exercising its contractual rights after reviewing the borrower's financial disclosure, and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicants sought a declaration that an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a property was null and void after the respondent purchasers failed to waive inspection and financing conditions by the deadline.

The respondents had proposed an amendment to the APS instead of waiving the conditions, which the applicants did not accept.

The respondents subsequently registered a Purchaser's Lien on the property.

The court held that the APS was null and void because the conditions were not explicitly waived or fulfilled in writing as required.

The court ordered the Purchaser's Lien discharged and the deposit returned to the respondents, finding no breach of the duty of good faith by the applicants.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking possession of the individual defendant's residential home to satisfy a mortgage shortfall of approximately $978,000 following the sale of a commercial investment property.

The defendants opposed the motion, counterclaiming that the plaintiff sold the investment property improvidently for $4.8 million despite earlier appraisals valuing it much higher, and challenging nearly $500,000 in renewal fees and penalties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the conflicting property appraisals, the plaintiff's efforts to sell the property, and the legal effect and comprehension of the additional fees.