By: Jeffrey M. Haber It has long been the law that the business judgment rule applies to the decisions made by boards of directors of residential cooperatives and condominiums. “The business judgment rule ‘bars judicial inquiry into actions of corporate directors taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate furtherance of corporate purposes.’” “ ourts must defer to a board’s determination if it was taken in furtherance of the corpo

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On July 8, 2019, this Blog wrote an article titled, “First Department Unanimously Affirms Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claims” ( here ). The article examined the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department in BML Properties Ltd. v. China Construction America Inc. , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 05339 (1st Dept. July 2, 2019), in which the Court (as the title states) affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Idi v. Sela , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01890 (1st Dept. Apr. 1, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed an issue of contract interpretation that this Blog often examines: enforcing written agreements that are complete, clear, and unambiguous on their face. Under New York law, written agreements are construed in accordance with the parties’ intent . “The best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in

By: Jeffrey M. Haber To state a claim for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury.” The claim must pleaded with particularity. Conclusory allegations will not suffice. Neither will allegations based on information and

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Imperium Blue Acquisition Partners, LLC v. Marathon Asset Mgt., L.P. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01317 (1st Dept. Mar. 11, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department was asked to consider whether, among other things, plaintiffs satisfied the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim. As discussed below, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to do so. In Essential Home Remodeling, Inc. v. Rossin , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01314 (1st Dept. Mar. 11,

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Previously, this Blog examined the doctrine of res judicata ( here , here , here and here ). Under the doctrine, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter. The doctrine applies not only to claims actually litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation. The rationale underlying the doctrine is that a party who h

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is well-settled that a plaintiff asserting a derivative claim seeks to recover for injury to the business entity, regardless of whether the entity is a corporation, limited liability company, or partnership. 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 does not have an individual cause of action that derives from

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The question that clients most often ask their attorney is whether they can get back their attorney’s fees if they prevail on their claims. As we have explained in past articles ( e.g. , here , here , here , and here ), attorney’s fees are not generally recoverable in litigation under the “American Rule”. Under the American Rule, “attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is auth

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Now and then a lawyer fails to meet a deadline or otherwise acts untimely. Several “saving” provisions in the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) are available to assist a lawyer when deadlines are missed. These include: CPLR 2005, CPLR 3012(d), and CPLR 5015(a). The key to applying one or more of these provisions is the reasonableness of the excuse for the delay or default. In Fox v. Gross , 219 A.D.3d 584, 585-586 (2d Dept. 2023), the Appellate Divi

By: Jeffrey M. Haber An operating agreement is the primary document that establishes the rights, powers, duties, liabilities, and obligations of the members of a limited liability company (“LLC”) between themselves and with respect to the company. The purpose of the document is to govern the internal operations of an LLC in a way that addresses the needs of the company’s owners (also known as “members”). Notwithstanding its importance, not every state requires an LLC to have

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is not uncommon for courts to apply the law of another jurisdiction to resolve a dispute before it. In commercial matters, choice of law contract provisions and doctrines, such as the internal affairs doctrine, typically identify the law that should apply to the parties’ dispute. Palella v. TMO VI LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 30373(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Jan. 27, 2025) ( here ), is a recent example of a New York court applying the law of another jurisdi

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, to recover damages for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury.” The element that most often spells failure for a plaintiff is reasonable reliance – that is, reliance on

By: Jeffrey M. Haber We have 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 rules

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 CP

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Hobish v. AXA Equit. Life Ins. Co. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 00183 (Jan. 14, 2025) ( here ), the New York Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether punitive damages can be awarded to a successful party under General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349. Answering the question in the negative, the Court, in an opinion written by Judge Shirley Troutman, resolved a split among the appellate divisions. GBL § 349 applies to virtually all economic activity, and i

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On numerous occasions, this Blog has examined the attorney-client privilege, the common interest doctrine, and the attorney work product doctrine. Today, we take another opportunity to explore the contours of these privileges. The Tension Between Disclosure and The Attorney-Client Privilege The Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) directs that there shall be “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Under New York law, written agreements are construed in accordance with the parties’ intent. “The best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing.” As such, “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.” “Courts may not ‘by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new con

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The justifiable reliance element has been described as a “fundamental precept” and a “venerable rule”. The requirement is one of the five elements of a fraud cause of action: (1) a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact; (2) which was false and known to be false by the defendant(s); (3) made for the purpose of inducing another person to rely upon it; (4) justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission; an

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In International Business Machs. Corp. v. GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 06425 (1st Dept. Dec. 19, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department was asked to consider whether a contractual jury waiver provision applied to a claim for fraudulent inducement where the plaintiff did not seek to void or rescind the subject contracts if it prevailed on its fraudulent inducement claim, but instead attempted to enforce the contracts and

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In almost every litigation, the question that clients most often ask is whether they can get back their attorney’s fees. As we have explained in past articles ( e.g. , here , here , and here ), attorney’s fees are not generally recoverable in litigation under the “American Rule”. The American Rule “was originally derived from federal legislation passed in 1853 which recognized that ‘losing litigants were being unfairly saddled with exorbitant fees.’” Un