Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fuentes v. LOMTO Fed. Credit Union
Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 07540Docket: 2019-05169
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 28, 2021; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of Fuentes v. LOMTO Federal Credit Union (2021 NY Slip Op 07540), the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's order that denied Julio C. Fuentes' motion for a preliminary injunction and granted various defendants' cross motions to dismiss his complaint. Fuentes had borrowed over $500,000 from LOMTO to finance a New York City yellow taxicab medallion, defaulting on the loan in October 2018. LOMTO subsequently notified him that the loan had matured and demanded payment of the outstanding balance. Fuentes alleged breach of contract against LOMTO, claiming the credit union improperly extended the loan despite knowing the medallion's value was declining. He also asserted negligence claims against the City of New York, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, alleging these entities enacted policies that devalued the taxi medallion. The Supreme Court determined that the essential elements of a breach of contract claim, including the existence of a contract, performance by the plaintiff, breach by the defendant, and resultant damages, were not sufficiently established, leading to the dismissal of his claims. The decision was affirmed with costs awarded to the respondents. In evaluating a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the alleged facts as true, provides the alleging party with every favorable inference, and assesses whether these facts align with any recognized legal theory. The Supreme Court correctly found that the plaintiff did not present a valid breach of contract claim against LOMTO, as the contract did not obligate LOMTO to disclose investment risks. Additionally, the plaintiff was required to serve a notice of claim to proceed against the City, TLC, the Port Authority, and the MTA, as dictated by General Municipal Law and Public Authorities Law. The plaintiff’s failure to serve this notice led the Supreme Court to appropriately grant the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's other claims as lacking merit, resulting in the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. The decision was concurred by Judges Chambers, Hinds-Radix, Miller, and Connolly, with Clerk Maria T. Fasulo entering the order.