assumed all of the rights and remedies previously conveyed to Lehman Bank. On this basis, Lehman Holdings argues that it was injured by Universal American’s alleged breach, allowing Lehman Holdings to sue on its own as purchaser (and not merely as assignee) of the agreements. This argument is invalid. The breaches of the contractual representations and warranties occurred when they were owed to Lehman Bank, not Lehman Holdings. It was not until 2011, years after the losses were allegedly sustained, that any of the contractual rights were assigned to Lehman Holdings. Thus, when the causes of action accrued, the alleged victim would have been Lehman Bank, not Lehman Holdings. See ACE Secs. Corp. v. DB Structured Prods., Inc., 25 N.Y.3d 581, 596-97, 15 N.Y.S.3d 716, 36 N.E.3d 623 (2015) (<HOLDING>); Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg.
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that a breach of a representation or warranty occurs at the time of contract execution regardless of any subsequent failure to observe contractual terms requiring repurchase or cure of that breach holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach