This Blog frequently writes on numerous issues related to mortgage foreclosure. One aspect of a foreclosure action is the calculation of the amounts due to the lender.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is not often that we examine a case involving the doctrine of champerty. The last time we did so was on March 8, 2023 ( here ). We also examined the champerty doctrine in 2021 ( here ), 2020 ( here ), and 2016 ( here ). Today, we examine the champerty doctrine in our discussion of IKB Intl. S.A. v. Morgan Stanley , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 01675 (1st Dept. Mar. 26, 2024) ( here ). Champerty is the prohibited practice of purchasing claims for the purpose of

By Jonathan H. Freiberger On March 19, 2024, the Court of Appeals decided Favourite Limited v. Cico , a case concerning “the proper scope of the trial court's discretion to grant leave to amend a complaint under CPLR 3025 (b) .” (Hyperlink added.) [Eds. Note: this BLOG has previously addressed CPLR 3025 < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . This BLOG has previously explained that CPLR 3025(b) provides, in pertinent p

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As we have often explained in the articles in which we have examined the duplication doctrine, fraud claims that are nothing more than contract claims dressed up in fraud clothing, are subject to dismissal. E.g. , here , here , here , and here . Thus, courts will apply the doctrine when a plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim and a fraud claim that arise from the same facts and circumstances. When that happens, the fraud claim will be deemed du

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Actions or proceedings (collectively, “Actions”) are commenced by filing the initiatory papers with the appropriate county clerk. CPLR 304(a) . 1 Once the Action is commenced, the plaintiff is required to serve the initiatory papers on the defendant and, generally, such service must occur within 120 days after the Action is commenced. CPLR 306-b . 2 “If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The common law doctrine of caveat emptor is a well-accepted rule of law in New York. Under the doctrine, the courts will not impose liability on a seller of property for failing to disclose information material to the transaction when the parties deal at arm’s length, [1] unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller which constitutes active concealment. [2] “If, however, some conduct ( i.e. , more than mere silence) on the part of the seller r

In commercial and business litigation, it is common for plaintiffs to assert claims against a business entity for wrongs committed by a corporate entity. Often, plaintiffs will try to “pierce the corporate veil,” or get behind the corporate form, to hold the entity’s officers or members liable for the alleged wrongdoing.

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Folks have general notions about usury. However, there are many nuances to the application of the usury laws in New York. This BLOG has previously written about usury. See [< here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> .] As noted in our prior BLOG articles, usury statutes were developed centuries ago to “protect desperately poor people from the consequences of their own desperat

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It should go without saying that people make mistakes. After all, people are human, and humans make mistakes. When people draft a document, especially a lengthy or complex one, it is not uncommon for a mistake to be made. Lawyers who draft contracts and other written instruments are not immune from this phenomenon. Given the steps a lawyer must take to draft and finalize an agreement or other written instrument there are numerous opportunities for unin

By Jonathan H. Freiberger People and businesses enter into all kinds of contracts with the expectation that the other party will perform according to the respective promises of the parties. [This BLOG has discussed the basics of contract formation and breach, inter alia , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> .] It is well known that a party to a contra

By Jonathan H. Freiberger This BLOG has written numerous times on issues related to statutes of limitation in mortgage foreclosure actions. See, e.g., [ here ], [ here ], [ here ], [ here ], [ here ], [ here ], [ here ], [ here ] and [ here ]. As previously described in this BLOG an action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations. CPLR 213(4) . See also Fed. Nat. Mort. Assoc. v. Schmitt , 172 A.D.3d 1324, 1325 (2 nd Dep’t 2019). When

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, “[a] release should never be converted into a starting point for … litigation except under circumstances and under rules which would render any other result a grave injustice.”

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Today we revisit CPLR 3215(c), a provision addressed several times by this Blog. See, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . By way of brief background, and as set forth in one of our prior Blogs, Rule 3215(c) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules provides, in pertinent part, that: If the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the ent

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Rosenberg v. OSG, LLC , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00691 (1st Dept. Feb. 8, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department underscored the insufficiency of pleading a fraud claim on information and belief. In affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim, the Court held that such pleading was “per se defective.” 1 Rosenberg is a class action arising out of plaintiffs’ participation in the Odyssey Study Group (“OSG”), which is ru

By Jonathan H. Freiberger This BLOG has written numerous times on statutes of limitation issues in mortgage foreclosure actions. See, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . Briefly stated, and as has been stated previously in this BLOG, an action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations. CP

By Jonathan H. Freiberger For a variety of reasons, a party asserting a claim may choose to discontinue same. In such circumstances, CPLR 3217 , provides the mechanism to do so. [Eds. Note: this BLOG has addressed CPLR 3217 < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> .] CPLR 3217(a), which addresses situations where a party asserting a claim may voluntarily discontinue a claim without the need for a court order, permits the party to do so, inter alia : (1) by serving o

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In 245 E. 19 Realty LLC v. 245 E. 19th St. Parking LLC , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00368 (1st Dept. Jan. 30, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department examined a couple of issues frequently discussed in this Blog: veil piercing/alter ego liability and fraudulent transfers. As to the issue of fraudulent transfers, 245 E. 19 Realty provides us with the opportunity to examine a case involving the new Debtor and Creditor Law (“DCL”), which became ef

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In prior articles, this Blog examined CPLR § 3102, the statutory provision that permits pre-action disclosure. See here and here . We do so again in connection with our examination of the Matter of Khorassani v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00354 (1st Dept. Jan. 25, 2024) ( here ). CPLR § 3102(c) provides that “ efore an action is commenced, disclosure to aid in bringing an action, to preserve information or to aid in arbi

By Jonathan H. Freiberger In order to protect homeowners, home improvement contractors are frequently required by municipalities to be licensed. Unlicensed home improvement contractors are precluded from collecting payments due from homeowners. Brightside Home Improvements, Inc. v. Northeast Home Improvement Services , 208 A.D.3d 446, 449 (2 nd Dep’t 2022). This BLOG has discussed such issues < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . Along these lines, CPLR § 3015

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, we have written about the duplication doctrine on numerous occasions. E.g. , here , here , and here . Courts apply the doctrine when a plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim and a fraud claim that arise from the same facts and circumstances. In that regard, a fraud claim will be deemed duplicative of a contract claim when the fraud claim arises from the same facts, seeks the same damages and does not allege a breach of