All Posts

Under Limited Liability Company Law §  609(a), a member or manager of a limited liability company is not personally liable for the LLC’s debts, obligations, or liabilities solely by reason of being a member or acting in that capacity. Applying this rule, the courts in 27-21 27th St. Sponsors, LLC v. Kanta , 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 01273 (1st Dept. Mar. 05, 2026), held that a minority member of an LLC could not be sued individually for the LLC’s obligations, as the operating agreem

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Financial exploitation of seniors and vulnerable adults is a significant problem.¹ It is considered by many to be an insidious non-violent form of elder abuse in the United States. While a landmark MetLife study initially estimated that older Americans lose roughly $2.6 to $2.9 billion each year to financial exploitation, more recent research suggests that the cost may be materially higher, potentially exceeding $36 billion annually . These numbers, whet

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, affinity fraud and Ponzi schemes often intersect because each reinforces the weaknesses of the other, creating a powerful and deceptive form of financial exploitation.¹ Affinity fraud is a form of financial deception that exploits the trust and social cohesion within a close‑knit group. These groups may be defined by shared religious beliefs, cultural or ethnic identity, professional affiliations, or community networks. The f

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger This BLOG has written numerous articles addressing statutes of limitation.¹ Today’s article discusses Mark v. Trimarco , a case decided by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on February 4, 2026, in which the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to breathe new life into an otherwise expired limitations period to sue on a promissory note. The statute of limitations on a promissory note is six years. CPLR 213(2) ; see also Carpenito v. Linksman ,

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber The doctrine of frustration of purpose is narrowly applied.¹ “In order to invoke the doctrine of frustration of purpose, the frustrated purpose must be so completely the basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made little sense.”² In other words, the doctrine will not apply “unless the frustration is substantial.”³ However, “frustration of purpose … is not available where the event which prevented pe

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber Liability for aiding and abetting a fraud is distinct from liability for committing the underlying fraud itself. This theory of liability recognizes that a defendant may substantially contribute to fraudulent misconduct without personally making any misrepresentation/omission or directly deceiving the plaintiff. Thus, instead of requiring proof that the defendant was the maker of a false statement or omission, an aiding‑and‑abetting theory turns on wheth

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger On January 28, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department, decided Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Starr , a mortgage foreclosure action that addresses many of the issues raised in our prior BLOG articles. The borrower in Starr allegedly defaulted in her repayment obligations under a promissory note secured by a mortgage on real property. In 2009, the lender commenced a mortgage foreclosure action (the “First Action”). In 2010, the Fi

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber To pierce the corporate veil under New York law, a plaintiff must satisfy a two‑part test and plead specific, non‑conclusory facts supporting each element. First, the plaintiff must show that the individual exercised complete domination and control over the corporation with respect to the specific transaction at issue. Second, even if domination exists, the plaintiff must show that the domination was used to commit a fraud, injustice, or other wrongful a

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In BH 336 Partners LLC v. Sentinel Real Estate Corp. , 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00305 (1st Dept. Jan. 22, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order denying in part a motion to dismiss a complaint containing fraud and fraudulent‑inducement claims arising from Plaintiffs’ purchases of five Manhattan buildings. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants orchestrated an illegal deregulation scheme that inflated property values through fraudulent i