By: Jeffrey M. Haber Obtaining jurisdiction over a person or corporation that is domiciled outside of the state can be difficult. A plaintiff must plead and prove that the person or entity purposefully used the resources of the state for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The failure to do so will result in dismissal of the action. Under CPLR § 302(a)(1), a court can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who “transacts any

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In ABN AMRO Capital USA LLC v. AMERRA Capital Mgt. , LLC, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 07178 (1st Dept. Dec. 20, 2022) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department considered two defenses that are often advanced to dismiss a claim for fraudulent inducement: the absence of justifiable reliance and duplication with a breach of contract claim. We examine those defenses in today’s article. ABN AMRO involved the extension of $360 million in loans to Transmar Comm

As readers of this Blog know, we have often written about the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim. Considered by the courts to be nettlesome, justifiable reliance is often the most difficult element for plaintiffs to satisfy.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In commercial and business litigation, it is common for plaintiffs to assert claims against a business entity for wrongs committed by the entity. Often, plaintiffs will try to “pierce the corporate veil,” or get behind the corporate form, to hold the entity’s officers or members liable for the alleged wrongdoing. Since a plaintiff must show that an officer or member used his/her control over the entity to commit a fraud or other wrong against the plaintif

By: Jeffrey M. Haber We have noted previously that the “policy of to encourage arbitration.” 1 For this reason, “ ny doubts as to whether an issue is arbitrable will be resolved in favor of arbitration.” 2 When a party wishes to compel arbitration, that party must establish “the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate”. 3 This means that, among other things, all parties to the agreement have the power and authority to enter into the agreement. In Wolf v. Hollis Operat

By: Jeffrey M. Haber A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit. 1 The formation of a partnership requires a shared purpose and knowing mutual assent by all parties to the partnership. Indeed, “ o person can become a member of a partnership without the consent of all the partners.” 2 When there is no written partnership agreement between the parties, as was the case in Velez v. Mitchell , 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 06877

By: Jeffrey M. Haber One of the elements of a fraud claim that plaintiffs have difficulty satisfying is justifiable reliance. For this reason, the justifiable reliance element is most often cited by defendants to secure dismissal of the claim against them. Justifiable reliance is considered by the courts to be one of the more “nettlesome” elements of a fraud claim. 1 Whether a plaintiff justifiably relied on a misrepresentation or omission is a fact-intensive inquiry. 2 As

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It should go without saying that a plaintiff claiming breach of contract should demonstrate that the parties formed a contract that has been breached. In fact, as discussed below, contract formation is the first element of a breach of contract claim. Typically, when there is a written agreement, issues of contract formation do not arise. Instead, the issue often arises in the context of an oral agreement, the exchange of emails, letters of intent, and te

By: Jeffrey M. Haber “The attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure any confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client made for the purpose of obtaining or facilitating legal advice in the course of a professional relationship.” 1 The privilege “fosters the open dialogue between lawyer and client that is deemed essential to effective representation.” 2 “It exists to ensure that one seeking legal advice will be able to confide fully and freely

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As a general matter, indemnity is defined to encompass a duty to make good on any loss, damage, or liability incurred by another. Therefore, when a person agrees to indemnify another, he or she agrees to hold the other person harmless for some loss or damage. Indemnification “may be based upon an express contract,” though it is “more commonly” implied “based upon the law’s notion of what is fair and proper as between the parties.” 1 Where the right to i

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On October 27, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals decided 34-06 73, LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co. , 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 06029 (2022) (here), a case in which the Court determined the contours of CPLR § 203(f). In a unanimous decision, written by Judge Rivera, the Court held that plaintiffs’ initial complaint, alleging that defendant breached the insurance agreement between the parties, did not give defendant notice of a subsequently alleged reformation claim base

By: Jeffrey Haber In prior articles, we have talked about the importance of saying what you mean in a contract. ( E.g. , here and here .) When contracts are clear and unambiguous, the meaning ascribed to the words used therein will be enforced because they reflect the intent of the parties. Such was the case in Padron v. Granite Broadway Dev. LLC , 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 05798 (1st Dept. Oct. 18, 2022). In Padron , plaintiff claimed that he sustained injuries when he slipped and

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the facts, and in the absence of fraud or material mistake of fact or law. 1 Notably, there is a presumption that payments are voluntary. 2 Thus, to rebut the presumption, the plaintiff must show that he/she protested the payment. In order for a protest to be effective, it must be in writing and (with some exceptions, as discussed below) made at the time of

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Since the early 20th century, a plaintiff alleging fraud in New York can recover only the actual pecuniary loss sustained as a result of a misrepresentation or omission, i.e. , the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket damages. 1 The damages recoverable under the out-of-pocket rule are intended to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not for what they might have gained. 2 The out-of-pocket rule was at issue in Danco Enters., LLC v. Livexliv

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In past articles, we have noted the importance of identifying the statements claimed to be false and misleading. In this regard, we talked about the need to plead the who, what, where, when and how of the alleged fraud. In other words, the plaintiff must allege the first paragraph of any newspaper story. The reason for such pleading is to satisfy the particularity requirement of CPLR § 3016(b). Under CPLR § 3016(b), a plaintiff alleging fraud must provid

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is well-settled that a plaintiff asserting a derivative claim seeks to recover for injury to the business entity. A plaintiff asserting a direct claim seeks redress for injury to himself/herself individually. “The distinction between derivative and direct claims is grounded upon the principle that a stockholder does not have an individual cause of action that derives from harm done to the corporation but may bring a direct claim when the wrongdoer has

By: Jeffrey M. Haber One of the elements of a fraud claim that plaintiffs have difficulty satisfying is justifiable reliance. As evident from the reported decisions, the justifiable reliance element is most often used by defendants to secure dismissal of the claim against them. In LIK Hospitality LLC v. Otway , 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 32979(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 31, 2022) ( here ), a case involving claims of, inter alia , fraudulent inducement, the justifiable reliance el

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Previously, this Blog examined the doctrines of frustration of purpose and impossibility of performance in the context of Covid-19 ( See here , here , and here ). Because the Covid-19 pandemic and these doctrines continue to work their way through the courts, we do so again today. In McLearen Square Shopping Center Herndon, Va. L.P. v. BadaNara, LLC , the plaintiff, a commercial landlord, brought suit against defendant BadaNara, LLC (“BadaNara”) 1 an

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is axiomatic that a plaintiff cannot succeed on his or her cause of action if there are no provable damages. It is, therefore, important that the plaintiff plead and prove each element of the claim, including the damages element. After all, damages are “an essential element” 1 of any tort cause of action. 2 This basic tenant of law was at the heart of Mohinani v. Charney , 3 a case in which plaintiff failed to prove damages resulting from defendants’

By: Jeffrey M. Haber A recurring question that courts and litigants often encounter is how to apply the continuing wrong doctrine to a statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations restrict the time within which a defendant can be held liability for all types of alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiffs who do not pursue their rights within the limitations period will find the courthouse doors closed to their claims. For this reason, whether the statute of limitations has run is an i