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.

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.

In Romano v. Kelly, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed reformation of a settlement agreement based on clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake.

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger In today’s BLOG article, we again discuss summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, which provides, in relevant part: When an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment, the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint. The summons served with such motion papers shall require the defendant to submit answering

“[A] release that, by its terms, extinguishes liability on any and all claims arising in connection with specified matters is deemed to encompass claims of fraud relating to those matters, even if the release does not specifically refer to fraud and was not granted in settlement of an actually asserted fraud claim.

New York’s CPLR 3213 allows a plaintiff to seek summary judgment in lieu of a complaint when liability for a sum certain is evident from an instrument for the payment of money only, such as a promissory note or unconditional guaranty. This expedited procedure avoids delays inherent in filing and answering a complaint.

In today’s article, we examine Epstein v. Cantor, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06989 (2d Dept. Dec. 17, 2025) (Epstein I), and Epstein v. Cantor, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06990 (Dec. 17, 2025) (Epstein II) (collectively, Epstein), related cases involving, among other things, New York’s partnership law.

In any contract dispute, “it is necessary to consider the language in the contract, for that is what controls the parties’ rights and responsibilities.” For this reason, New York courts “are guided by the standard rules of contractual interpretation, which provide that ‘a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.’”

In today’s article, we explore New York’s heightened pleading standard for defamation per se and defamation by implication.

In Sire Spirits, LLC v. Beam Suntory, Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06297 (1st Dept. Nov. 18, 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of a motion to amend a complaint seeking damages for “diminution of enterprise value” due to the alleged fraud.

In today’s article, we examine Hofman v. Braun, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 34102(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 24, 2025), a case addressing the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim and the continuous wrong doctrine.

In today’s article, we explore principles of contract interpretation and judicial dissolution of partnerships under New York law. As we discuss, courts interpret contracts based on the written intent of the parties and only consider extrinsic evidence when ambiguity exists.

New York’s adoption of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act in 2019 modernized its Debtor and Creditor Law. The revised law allows creditors to void both actual and constructive fraudulent transfers. Constructive fraud focuses on inadequate value and insolvency, while actual fraud hinges on intent, assessed via “badges of fraud.”

In today’s article, we examine Harris v. Dream Volunteers, a case in which the court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of contract interpretation: contracts that are clear and unambiguous must be enforced according to their plain terms.

Under New York’s Limited Liability Company Law (“LLCL”) § 702, a court “may decree dissolution of a limited liability company whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the articles of organization or operating agreement.” The claim must be brought “[o]n application by or for a member” of the company.

In Kellinger v. Fox Media LLC, the New York Supreme Court granted a motion brought by defendants to enforce a $15,000 settlement agreement with plaintiff. The motion court found that plaintiff had confirmed the settlement by email, satisfying CPLR 2104’s requirement for a written agreement. Although plaintiff later claimed he only agreed to review the documents, the motion court held that his email constituted a binding acceptance of the settlement.

In Simpson v. Chassen, the New York Supreme Court compelled the production of a joint defense agreement, rejecting claims that it was protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.

Today, we consider Tahari v. 860 Fifth Ave. Corp., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05584 (1st Dept. Oct. 9, 2025), an apparent case of first impression in the Appellate Division, First Department, involving the suability of a board of directors under New York law.

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 Macklowe Inv. Props. LLC v. MIP 57th Dev. Acquisition LLC, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05192 (1st Dept. Sept. 30, 2025), 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 condition.