This BLOG has previously addressed formal and informal appearances.

As discussed previously in this BLOG, and most recently in “You Can’t Always Waive Bye-Bye to Statutes of Limitations,” statutes of limitation govern the time in which a cause of action must be interposed after accrual. Article 2 of the CPLR addresses statute of limitations issues in New York.

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two recent appellate court decisions that highlight the role statutes of limitations play in fraud-based claims. Specifically, we explore how New York courts evaluate timeliness under CPLR 213(8), including the six-year limitations period and the two-year discovery rule, as well as the three-year limitations period governing General Business Law § 349 claims.

Summary judgment in lieu of a complaint under CPLR 3213 was central to the decision in Newmark Partners, L.P. v. Singer, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03923 (1st Dept. June 23, 2026), the subject of today’s article, where the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the enforcement of a settlement agreement arising from a failed $13 million transaction.

Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation-Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”)[1], which, inter alia, “allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are “‘united in interest.’”

When a court issues a decision and order that is self-effectuating, nothing further from the parties is required. Sometimes, however, a court’s decision will direct that the prevailing party either: (a) submit an order or judgment for the court to consider; or, (b) submit or settle an order or judgment, on notice, for the court’s consideration.

CPLR 3215(c) mandates dismissal of a complaint as abandoned if a plaintiff fails to take proceedings for a default judgment within one year of a defendant’s default, unless “sufficient cause” (a reasonable excuse and potentially meritorious claim) is shown. Recent cases clarify what qualifies as “taking proceedings.”

Letters of credit are designed to reduce risk in international trade by reallocating who bears the risk of nonpayment, and when. Instead of relying solely on a buyer’s willingness or ability to pay, the seller relies on the issuing bank’s independent obligation.

In today’s article, we examine the elements and heightened pleading requirements for fraudulent inducement claims under New York law, with a focus on the justifiable reliance element.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Minihane v. Brown , 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 01505 (2d Dept. Mar. 18, 2026), the Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed when the statute of limitations begins to run on a demand promissory note. The defendant borrowed $19,000 pursuant to a note that provided repayment was due only upon written demand, which could be made no earlier than January 1, 2015. Although the lender did not make a demand until September 2023, the borrower argued that the six

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.

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and Generative Artificial Intelligence (“GenAI”) are all the rage these days.

In Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. PEI Global Partners Holdings LLC, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00080 (1st Dept. Jan. 13, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of a complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(5) based on res judicata.

In Tri-Rail, the Court decided a “question which has not been directly addressed” in the Second Department involving the impact of non-compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (f/k/a the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act) (the “Act”) on obtaining a default judgment.

Today’s article relates to summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213

Discovery, an important part of the litigation process, enables litigants to collect information to assist in the prosecution and defense of a case. Because full disclosure is important, there are penalties for abusing the disclosure process. Today’s BLOG article focusses on spoliation[1] of evidence.

The tedious task of compiling hard copies of exhibits to annex to motion papers in supreme court litigation practice was ameliorated in 2014 when the CPLR was amended to permit litigants, in efiled cases, to simply refer in their briefs and affirmations to docket numbers on the efiling system.