top of page
Business Litigation


LLC Member Not Liable for LLC’s Debts and Usury
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
Jeffrey Haber
13 hours ago9 min read


Doctrines of Frustration of Purpose and Impossibility Apply Only When the Agreement’s Purpose is Completely Defeated, Not Partially Defeated
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
Jeffrey Haber
Feb 49 min read
Fraud: Assignment of Claims, Statute of Limitations, and Disclaimers
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
admin
Jan 2512 min read
Contract Ambiguity Defeats Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Claim
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Alphasense, Inc. v. Financial Tech. Partners LP , 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00185 (1st Dept. Jan. 15, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, considered whether Plaintiffs validly terminated an advisory agreement with Defendants under a “Key Man” provision. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ managing partner, critical to the engagement, gradually stopped participating in essential advisory work, including investor meetings, introductions, and fundr
admin
Jan 199 min read
bottom of page
