Business Litigation

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving principles familiar to readers of this Blog: the duplication doctrine and the requirement that plaintiffs plead sufficient facts to satisfy each element of a fraud claim. In Emissions Reduction Corp. v. mCloud Tech. (USA) Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05457 (1st Dept. Oct. 7, 2025) ( here ),  the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s fraud claim on the grounds of dupl

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Macklowe Inv. Props. LLC v. MIP 57th Dev. Acquisition LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05192 (1st Dept. Sept. 30, 2025) ( here ), the plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, sued pursuant to a letter agreement for a leasing commission after securing a tenant for defendants’ property. The letter agreement required satisfaction of a condition precedent before payment of the commission: execution of a leasing commission agreement. Plaintiff never fulfilled this cond

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In CJS Indus. Inc. v. Dolce , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05037 (1st Dept. Sept. 23, 2025 ( here ), plaintiff sued RS Custom Woodworking and its representatives for fraud after winning an arbitration award. Plaintiff alleged that defendants conspired to avoid payment by incorporating a new entity with a similar name between the initial and final arbitration awards. Plaintiff claimed the incorporation was part of a deliberate scheme to mislead and evade enforcemen

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Jefferies LLC v. Blaize Holdings, Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 33272(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Sept. 3, 2025 ( here ), the New York Supreme Court held that an engagement letter concerning the provision of investment banking services did not qualify as an “instrument for the payment of money only” under CPLR 3213, which allows for expedited summary judgment. The motion court found that the engagement letter imposed mutual obligations and required performa

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Celauro v. Celauro , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 04870 (Sept. 10, 2025) ( here ), a minority shareholder of a family-owned business alleged that company executives operated an illicit cash business, diverted profits and deprived shareholders of distributions/dividends. Plaintiff relied on dated deposition testimony, documents, and financial statements to support claims of ongoing misconduct. However, the motion court dismissed most of the breach of fiduciary d

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, as in most jurisdictions, statutes of limitation serve as a cutoff point for initiating legal action. These statutes define the time frame within which a plaintiff must file a lawsuit after a cause of action accrues. Once the limitation period expires, the claim is generally barred, regardless of its merits. The purpose of a statute of limitations is twofold. For plaintiffs, it encourages timely action, preserving evidence and ensuring witne

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Pursuant to CPLR 3213, a plaintiff may commence an action “based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment” by filing a summons and motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The statute “provide a speedy and effective means” for resolving “presumptively meritorious” claims. The standard to prevail on a CPLR 3213 motion is the same as that on a CPLR 3212 motion: accelerated judgment will be awarded “if, upon all the pa

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In BLDG 44 Developers LLC v. Pace Companies N.Y., LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op 32881(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 25, 2025) ( here ), BLDG 44 Developers LLC sued Pace Companies New York, LLC for breach of contract, seeking approximately $16 million in consequential damages related to delays in a construction project on E. 44th Street, New York, N.Y. BLDG, the project owner, was a third-party beneficiary to a subcontract between Pace and Noble Construction G

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Finkelstein v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op 32882(U) (Sup. Ct., July 30, 2025) ( here ), plaintiff alleged that he was underpaid on his investment in a residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trust due to the improper exercise of termination rights by the trust’s servicers. Plaintiff claimed they excluded deferred principal and interest balances from the termination price, repackaged the remaining loans, and profited from new trusts. Th

By: Jeffrey M. Haber This Blog has written frequently about the substance and scope of general releases. In New York, “a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release.” If “the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a ‘jural act’ binding on the parties.” For this reason, “ release should never be converted into a starting point for … litigation except under circumstances and under

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine in which a court may dismiss an action where another forum would be better suited to adjudicate the matter. In New York, the doctrine is codified in CPLR 327(a). Under this section, a court may “stay or dismiss action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just” if it finds that “in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum.” The doctrine reflects the basic p

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Wilburger v. Ava Labs, Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51072(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 3, 2025) ( here ), plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent inducement related to unpaid compensation for services rendered under an Independent Contractor Agreement. Plaintiff alleged that he worked over 2,300 hours between 2019 and 2023, including tasks beyond the scope of the agreement, and was promised payment in AVAX cry

By:   Jeffrey M. Haber Under New York law, an action based upon fraud must be commenced within six years of the date the cause of action accrued, or within two years of the time the plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence, whichever is greater. The cause of action accrues when “every element of the claim, including injury, can truthfully be alleged”, “even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or inj

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Lopez v. O’Sullivan , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32178(U) (Sup. Ct., Suffolk County) ( here ), the court declined to dismiss fraud claims, among others, finding that plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim for such relief against the defendants. The court determined that plaintiff provided detailed allegations of misrepresentations made by defendants, which induced him to enter into transactions that ultimately deprived him of ownership of his property. In doin

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Bardy v. Bonnem , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03698 (2d Dept. June 18, 2025) ( here ), plaintiff claimed an oral agreement entitled him to purchase a 25% ownership interest in a drive-thru coffee business in exchange for developing it. The agreement was allegedly based on a November 13, 2016 email offer, orally accepted three days later. Plaintiff allegedly performed substantial work without compensation, relying on the agreement. When the business succeeded,

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In One River Run Acquisition, LLC v. Milde , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03653 (1st Dept. June 17, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department reinstated counterclaims for fraud and fraudulent transfers after they had been dismissed at the motion court level. The case arose from a failed joint venture between One River Run Acquisition, LLC (“ORRA”) and Greenwich Group International LLC (“GGI”) to develop a luxury resort in Colorado. In its countercla

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber This Blog has written about the process known as “summary judgment in lieu of a complaint” on several occasions. The process, codified in CPLR 3213, is a procedure that is unique to New York practice. CPLR 3213 allows a plaintiff to move for summary judgment before the complaint is filed, directly challenging the defendant’s ability to contest the underlying claim. It bypasses traditional pleading and discovery and is available when the action is based

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, litigants often grapple with the appropriate limitation period to apply to breach of fiduciary claims. There is no single statute of limitations that the courts and the parties can look to. “Rather, the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks.” “Where the remedy sought is purely monetary in nature, courts construe the suit as alleging ‘injury to property’ within the meaning of C

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine Yudkin v. Evergreen Terrace 888 Corp. , 2025 NY Slip Op 03223 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025) ( here ), and Lapin v. Verner , 2025 NY Slip Op 03184 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025) ( here ). Yudkin involved the statute of limitations for fraud and the continuing wrong doctrine. Lapin involved the failure to plead the elements of a fraud claim. Yudkin v. Evergree Terrace 888 Corp. “A defendant who moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Libman v. Hershey Co. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 31769(U), (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County May 5, 2025) ( here ), the motion court was asked to consider whether a front-of-the-package label on the Twizzlers candy wrapper violated General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350. Front-of-package labels are labels that manufacturers put on the front of packaged foods to give consumers basic nutrition information in a way that is easy to understand and allows them to compar