By Jonathan H. Freiberger Many times, multiple actions are pending that involve similar facts and/or legal issues. In such instances it may be appropriate to consolidate those actions pursuant to CPLR 602(a) , which provides that “ hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion, may order a joint trial of any or all the matters in issue, may order the actions consolidated, and may make such other orders concerning pr

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Because there have been a number of appellate decisions interpreting RPAPL 1304 , this Blog has written frequently on that topic. See, e.g. , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < 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>"> . By way of background, and as p

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On February 14, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals decided State of New York v. Vayu, Inc. , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 00801 (Feb. 14, 2023) ( here ). Vayu addressed what it means to purposefully avail oneself of the privilege of conducting activities within New York by transacting business in the state. In a 5-1 decision, authored by Judge Michael J. Garcia, the Court held that Vayu, acting through its chief executive officer, repeatedly projected itself into

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, to form a contract, the following elements must be present: an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent (or a meeting of the minds) and an intent to be bound. Contracts are subject to the equitable remedy of rescission or reformation if entered under a mutual mistake. 1 To invoke the doctrine of mutual mistake, a party must present proof that the agreement, as expressed, does not represent a “meeting of t

By Jonathan H. Freiberger A commercial lease can be a valuable asset for a business. Accordingly, a tenant must be mindful of its rights in the face of a default/cure notice from a landlord. Generally, a tenant that wants to retain its lease and disputes a curable default, or cannot remedy a curable default within the contractual cure period, should consider obtaining a Yellowstone injunction. Yellowstone="<em>Yellowstone</em>" injunctions="injunctions" here,=">here</a>,"

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Previously, this Blog has examined the doctrine of res judicata ( 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 has been give

By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog frequently addresses issues related to mortgage foreclosure actions, generally, and issues of standing, specifically. Much of the background of this article was taken from a prior article: “ Appellate Division, Second Department, Validates Mortgage Foreclosure Defendants’ Cries of ‘Leave me Allonge ’”. As to the issues relating to the standing of a lender to commence a foreclosure action, this Blog has noted that, in general, a foreclosin

By Jeffrey M. Haber Under New York law, a party’s termination of a contract is ineffective when the contract provides for notice and an opportunity to cure, and notice was not provided. 1 As explained by the First Department: Our case law is clear that a party’s termination is ineffective where the relevant contract provides for a notice to cure and notice is not provided …This approach gives effect to the principle that, generally, where contracting parties agree on a term

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Regular readers of this Blog know that we spend a good deal of time writing about mortgage foreclosure. The anticipated conclusion of a mortgage foreclosure action is a foreclosure sale. The judicial sale is also the hoped-for conclusion of other types of proceedings – such as mechanic’s lien foreclosures and condominium lien foreclosures. Once conducted, there are mechanisms to set aside judicial sales when warranted. “ ven after a judicial sale

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The faithless servant doctrine 1 provides that an employee who is faithless in the performance of their duties ( i.e. , breaches their duty of loyalty to the employer) is not entitled to recover either salary or commission. 2 While the language of the rule may imply a broad application, courts generally apply the rule relatively narrowly. 3 Courts will usually hold an employee liable under the faithless servant doctrine only if the employee has usurped

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Typically, when a plaintiff claims to have been defrauded, he/she typically argues that the defendant made an affirmative misrepresentation of fact. Fraud does not, however, always concern an affirmative statement. Sometimes a person can perpetrate a fraud through the omission of a material fact. Where fraud by omission is claimed, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant had a duty to disclose the omitted fact. A duty to disclose arises when (1) the

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The statute of frauds provides that “ contract for the . . . the sale, of any real property, or an interest therein, is void unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing.” 1 “To satisfy the statue of frauds, a memorandum evidencing a contract and subscribed by the party to be charged must designate the par

By Jonathan H. Freiberger As the Court of Appeals has explained it, “ ummary judgment permits a party to show, by affidavit or other evidence, that there is no material issue of fact to be tried, and that judgment may be directed as a matter of law, thereby avoiding needless litigation cost and delay. Where appropriate, summary judgment is a great benefit both to the parties and to the overburdened New York State trial courts.” Brill v. City of New York , 2 N.Y.3d 648, 651 (

By: Jeffrey M. Haber We start the new year off examining Dragons 516 Ltd. v. Knights Genesis Inv. Ltd. , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50020(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Jan. 6, 2023) ( here ), a case involving many of the themes we often consider in our discussion of fraud and fraudulent inducement claims. Dragons involved a dispute between a lender and a borrower. Plaintiff, Dragons 516 Limited (“Dragons”), alleged that defendants fraudulently conspired to misrepresent the ownership str

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Obtaining jurisdiction over a person or corporation that is domiciled outside of the state can be difficult. A plaintiff must plead and prove that the person or entity purposefully used the resources of the state for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The failure to do so will result in dismissal of the action. Under CPLR § 302(a)(1), a court can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who “transacts any

By Jonathan H. Freiberger As previously addressed in numerous articles on this Blog, the New York State Legislature has responded to the residential mortgage foreclosure crisis by promulgating a series of rules designed to protect homeowners. These rules place additional burdens on foreclosing lenders, and courts throughout New York State have demonstrated little sympathy for noncompliance. For example, we have written frequently about residential mortgage foreclosure pract

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In ABN AMRO Capital USA LLC v. AMERRA Capital Mgt. , LLC, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 07178 (1st Dept. Dec. 20, 2022) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department considered two defenses that are often advanced to dismiss a claim for fraudulent inducement: the absence of justifiable reliance and duplication with a breach of contract claim. We examine those defenses in today’s article. ABN AMRO involved the extension of $360 million in loans to Transmar Comm

As readers of this Blog know, we have often written about the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim. Considered by the courts to be nettlesome, justifiable reliance is often the most difficult element for plaintiffs to satisfy.

By Jonathan H. Freiberger If you are too busy to play along after reading the title of today’s article, it is my pleasure to help you out. FIRST -- CPLR 304 , which explains how to commence an action or special proceeding, provides at subparagraph (a): An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice in accordance with rule twenty-one hundred two of this chapter. A special proceeding is commenced by filing a petition in accordance with rule t

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In commercial and business litigation, it is common for plaintiffs to assert claims against a business entity for wrongs committed by the 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. Since a plaintiff must show that an officer or member used his/her control over the entity to commit a fraud or other wrong against the plaintif