In CJS Indus. Inc. v. Dolce, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05037 (1st Dept. Sept. 23, 2025, plaintiff sued RS Custom Woodworking and its representatives for fraud after winning an arbitration award. Both the motion court and the Appellate Division, First Department, found that plaintiff failed to plead fraud with the required particularity in compliance with CPLR 3016(b).

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.

In Celauro v. Celauro, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 04870 (Sept. 10, 2025), 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. The motion court dismissed most of the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding many of the allegations to be time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations and the surviving claims too speculative.

In New York, as in most jurisdictions, statutes of limitation serve as a cutoff point for initiating legal action. In business litigation, parties often encounter statutes of limitation issues involving, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims.

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.

In today’s article, we examine BLDG 44 Developers LLC v. Pace Companies N.Y., LLC, a case involving consequential damages.

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. The servicers argued that the governing agreement barred the action because it included a “no action” clause.

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.”

In Korea Inv. & Sec. Co., Ltd. v. Seabury Capital Group LLC, the court dismissed a fraud complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, finding New York lacked a substantial nexus to the alleged misconduct.

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.

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.

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 Bardy v. Bonnem, the plaintiff sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for an ownership option in a drive-thru coffee business. The motion court upheld the agreement based on an email proposal orally accepted by the plaintiff and partial performance. On appeal, the Second Department modified the motion court’s order, finding the email lacked essential terms to satisfy New York’s Statute of Frauds (GOL § 5-701) and that the contract could not be performed within one yea

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.

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 on an instrument for the payment of money only.[2] The purpose of CPLR 3213 “is to provide an accelerated procedure where liability for a certain sum is clearly established by the instrument itself.”

In New York, the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims varies by remedy: three years for monetary relief, six years for equitable or fraud-based claims. A claim accrues when the fiduciary openly repudiates their duty or when damages occur. In Lambos v. Karabinis, a case that we examine today, the court found no clear repudiation of fiduciary duties, so the statute of limitations had not begun to run.

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine Yudkin v. Evergreen Terrace 888 Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 03223 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025), and Lapin v. Verner, 2025 NY Slip Op 03184 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025). 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.

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.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties to do something (e.g., provide goods or services) in exchange for a benefit. When one or more parties to a contract fail to perform a term in their agreement, they are in breach of that agreement.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The elements of a claim for breach of contract are straightforward. The movant must establish: (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract, (3) the defendant’s breach of the contract, and (4) damages resulting from the defendant’s breach. As readers of this Blog know, “ hen the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found within the four corners of the contract, g