By: Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we examine South Shore D’Lites LLC v. First Class Prods. Grp., LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 01769 (1st Dept. Apr. 4, 2023) ( here ), a case involving the special facts doctrine in the context of a fraud claim, in particular, the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim. South Shore D’Lites concerned licenses to sell ice cream. The licenses were sold to plaintiffs, South Shore D’Lites, LLC, D’Lites of West Caldwell, LLC, and HGB D’Li

By Jonathan H. Freiberger While this Blog has addressed numerous issues relating to residential mortgage foreclosure, it has never touched upon the requirement in RPAPL 1351 (1) that a judgment of foreclosure and sale “shall direct that the mortgaged premises, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to discharge the mortgage debt, the expenses of the sale and the costs of the action, and which may be sold separately without material injury to the parties interested, be sold b

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In NW Media Holdings Corp. v. IBT Media Inc. , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30875(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Mar. 22, 2023) ( here ), Justice Melissa A. Crane addressed the question whether the destruction of millions of pages of data on a Google Workspace (“Workspace”) states a claim for trespass to chattels or conversion. As discussed below, Justice Crane concluded that the allegations concerning the destruction of such data sufficed to state a claim for conversio

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Structured settlement annuities are frequently used by courts and litigants to provide a stream of payments to, inter alia , injured parties and/or their families in personal injury and/or wrongful death cases. Due to abuse at the hands of unscrupulous factoring companies, the New York Legislature, in 2002, enacted the Structured Settlement Protection Act (”SSPA”). As the court in In the Matter of Petition of 321 Henderson Receivables Origination

By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog has frequently addressed the interplay between document discovery in litigation and the repercussions resulting from the spoliation of evidence. [ See, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> .] “Spoliation” refers to evidence that is “destroyed” “substantially altered” or “lost”. See, e.g., Gilliam v. Uni Holdings , 201 A.D.3d 83, 86 (1 st Dep’t 2021); D

By: Jeffrey M. Haber To establish a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must plead a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance and damages. 1 In Pope Investments II LLC v. Belmont Partners, LLC , Case No. 2022-02632 (1st Dept. Mar. 14, 2023) ( here ), and RCM/CMG Portfolio Holding, LLC v. Giordano , Case No. 2021-03254 (1st Dept. Mar. 14, 2020) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addre

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Standlee Premium Prods, LLC v. WGST, Inc. , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30625(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Mar. 2, 2023) ( here ), the court addressed three topics that we often write about: fraudulent inducement, fraudulent conveyance and GBL § 349. As to the former, the issue before the court was whether defendants made a material misstatement of present fact – i.e. , whether defendants misrepresented their present intention to perform under the agreements know

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is not often that we examine a case involving a cause of action for champerty. The last time we did so was on April 23, 2021 ( here ). We also examined the champerty doctrine in 2020 ( here ) and 2016 ( here ). But what is champerty? Simply, champerty is the prohibited practice of purchasing claims for the purpose of commencing litigation. New York’s prohibition against champertous transactions is codified in Section 489 of the Judiciary Law, which pr

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In 228 W. 72 LLC v. 228A W. 72 LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 01057 (1st Dept. Feb. 28, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department dismissed a fraudulent inducement claim because the facts allegedly concealed were publicly available. We examine 228 W. 72 LLC below. 228 W. 72 involved the purchase of real property (the “Premises”) by Plaintiff, 228 W. 72 LLC (“Plaintiff”), from Defendant, 228A W. 72 LLC (“Defendant”). Among other things, the con

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The law reporters are brimming with cases in which a plaintiff seeks relief from a defendant for the failure to make a payment that is due and owing. The scenarios in which this fact pattern occurs are too many to recite here. As the reader might expect, plaintiffs do not always retain the invoice or other similar writing. Nevertheless, they seek relief, claiming that alternative evidence, such as an email, suffices to demonstrate that the defendant owes

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