Commercial Litigation

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Last Week in our BLOG article: “ It’s Unanimous – The Fourth Department Joins the Other Departments and Confirms the Retroactive Application of FAPA ,” we again discussed FAPA and noted that on November 25, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals decided two cases: Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank , and Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N. A. , in which the Court determined that retroactive application of FAPA’s provisions passes constitutional muster und

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Kober v. Nestampower , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06609 (2d Dept. Nov. 26, 2025), the Appellate Division, Second Department, decided an appeal involving disputes over membership interests in a limited liability company. After a member’s death, her daughter attempted to assign the trust’s LLC interest to herself and siblings without obtaining consent from other members. Plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief and damages. The Court held that under New York’s Li

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger oday’s article is about MCLP Asset Co. v. Zaveri , an action that involves numerous areas of the law about which we frequently write -- mortgage foreclosure, FAPA, CPLR 205(a), CPLR 205-A and statutes of limitation. Statute of Limitations in Foreclosure Actions By way of brief background, and as previously written in this BLOG, an action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations. CPLR 213(4) ; see also Medina v. Bank

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we explore New York’s heightened pleading standard for defamation per se and defamation by implication. In Armbruster Capital Mgt., Inc. v. Barrett , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06493 (4th Dept. Nov. 21, 2025), defendants sought to amend a counterclaim alleging that emails from plaintiff’s executives implied defendant lacked professional integrity. Initially denied by the motion court, the amendment was later deemed sufficient because defendan

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger On October 31, 2025, the Supreme Court, Kings County, decided loanDepot.com LLC v. Ortner , a case addressing the meaning of the “taking proceedings” requirement of CPLR 3215(c) . By way of brief background, when a defendant defaults in appearing in an action, CPLR 3215(c) requires that the plaintiff act promptly to secure a default judgment. As previously discussed in prior BLOG articles, CPLR 3215(c) provides, in pertinent part, that: If the pla

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Sire Spirits, LLC v. Beam Suntory, Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06297 (1st Dept. Nov. 18, 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of a motion to amend a complaint seeking damages for “diminution of enterprise value” due to the alleged fraud. Under CPLR 3025(b), leave to amend is freely given unless the amendment is prejudicial or patently meritless. However, New York’s fraud damages rule limits recovery to out-of-pocket losses

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger William Cowper, in his Eighteenth-Century poem “The Task,” coined the phrase “Variety’s the very spice of life.” Today, this phrase is used in many contexts; albeit not so frequently when discussing service of process under CPLR 308(4) – the subject of today’s BLOG. In our recent BLOG article: “ Primer – Personal Jurisdiction and Service of Process ” we explored various process service issues. As discussed therein, obtaining personal jurisdiction

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In 2019, New York enacted the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, which repealed and replaced certain provisions of the Debtor and Creditor Law (“DCL”) relating to fraudulent conveyances, which became effective April 4, 2020. Transfers made after April 4, 2020 are governed by the current version of the DCL. The DCL, as amended, permits creditors to void actual and constructive fraudulent transfers. A creditor may void a debtor’s constructive fraudulent t

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, when interpreting a contract, the words of the writing must be accorded their fair and reasonable meaning, aiming for a practical interpretation that realizes the reasonable expectations of the parties. The court is required to enforce a written agreement according to the plain meaning of its terms when it is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face.  Although the parties may offer conflicting interpretations of their contract, that do

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses 1995 Cam LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC , a case decided on October 21, 2025, by the New York Court of Appeals. In 1995 Cam , the Court held that the guaranty executed by guarantor was a “good guy” guaranty and, therefore, liability under the subject commercial lease ended with the tenant’s surrender of possession of the premises and not with the landlord’s acceptance of the surrender. By way of background, a “good guy” gua

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Kellinger v. Fox Media LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 33835(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 8, 2025) ( here ), the New York Supreme Court granted a motion brought by defendants to enforce a $15,000 settlement agreement with plaintiff. The motion court found that plaintiff had confirmed the settlement by email, satisfying CPLR 2104’s requirement for a written agreement. Although plaintiff later claimed he only agreed to review the documents, the motion court

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, a “cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation requires 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.” When addressing the element of justifiable reliance, the “general rule” is th

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses M & T Bank v. Givens , a case decided on October 15, 2025, by the Appellate Division, Second Department. Givens addresses three issues encountered in mortgage foreclosure actions: motions for extensions of time pursuant to CPLR 2004 , the 90-day requirement to conduct foreclosure sales pursuant to RPAPL 1351(1) and the tolling of interest due to a lender’s delays in prosecuting its foreclosure action. CPLR 2004 CPLR 2004

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. In Simpson v. Chassen , the New York Supreme Court compelled the production of a joint defense agreement (“JDA”), rejecting claims that it was protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. The

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber Today, we consider Tahari v. 860 Fifth Ave. Corp. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05584 (1st Dept. Oct. 9, 2025) ( here ), an apparent case of first impression in the Appellate Division, First Department, involving the suability of a board of directors under New York law.    In New York, “the business of a corporation managed under the direction of its board of directors…” Notwithstanding, a corporation’s board of directors is neither empowered to commence an act

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving principles familiar to readers of this Blog: the duplication doctrine and the requirement that plaintiffs plead sufficient facts to satisfy each element of a fraud claim. In Emissions Reduction Corp. v. mCloud Tech. (USA) Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05457 (1st Dept. Oct. 7, 2025) ( here ),  the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s fraud claim on the grounds of dupl

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, we have written about many types of fraud over the years, such as affinity fraud, common law fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraudulent concealment, and securities fraud. Another type of fraud concerns fraud in the execution or fraud in the factum. Three years ago, we examined Paredes v. Vorhand , a case involving this legal principle ( here ). Since that time, we have not examined any cases involving fraud in the executio

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Macklowe Inv. Props. LLC v. MIP 57th Dev. Acquisition LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05192 (1st Dept. Sept. 30, 2025) ( here ), the plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, sued pursuant to a letter agreement for a leasing commission after securing a tenant for defendants’ property. The letter agreement required satisfaction of a condition precedent before payment of the commission: execution of a leasing commission agreement. Plaintiff never fulfilled this cond

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In CJS Indus. Inc. v. Dolce , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05037 (1st Dept. Sept. 23, 2025 ( here ), plaintiff sued RS Custom Woodworking and its representatives for fraud after winning an arbitration award. Plaintiff alleged that defendants conspired to avoid payment by incorporating a new entity with a similar name between the initial and final arbitration awards. Plaintiff claimed the incorporation was part of a deliberate scheme to mislead and evade enforcemen

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Jefferies LLC v. Blaize Holdings, Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 33272(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Sept. 3, 2025 ( here ), the New York Supreme Court held that an engagement letter concerning the provision of investment banking services did not qualify as an “instrument for the payment of money only” under CPLR 3213, which allows for expedited summary judgment. The motion court found that the engagement letter imposed mutual obligations and required performa