By Jonathan H. Freiberger Article 52 of the CPLR addresses the enforcement of money judgments. In the most simplistic terms, Article 52 addresses the property of a judgment debtor that is subject to enforcement and the various tools available to a judgment creditor to enforce a money judgment. On December 16, 2021, the New York Court of Appeals decided Plymouth Venture Partners, II, L.P. v. GTR Sources, LLC , in which the Court answered the following two questions certified

By Jonathan H. Freiberger A significant part of a mortgage foreclosure action is the calculation of the sums due and owing to the lender. The task of computing the amount due is typically performed by the referee appointed by the court for that purpose. What the referee is permitted to include in the calculations, which is generally governed by statute and the underlying loan documents, includes, among other things, outstanding principal, advances for taxes, insurance and o

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Yesterday, the Appellate Division, First Department decided three cases involving claims for fraudulent inducement. We examine each of these cases below. Artemus USA LLC v. Leila Taghinia-Milani Inc. Artemus involved artwork that was consigned by Artemus USA LLC (“Artemus”) to defendants pursuant to a consignment agreement (“Agreement”). Plaintiffs alleged that the artwork was damaged while consigned to the Defendants. In their opposition to plaintiffs

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Last April, this Blog wrote about Sodhi v. IAC/InterActiveCorp , 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 31220(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Apr. 8, 2021) ( here ), an action to recover money claimed to be improperly withheld by IAC/Interacticecorp (“IAC”). The primary issue in the Sodhi was whether the releases in a settlement letter covered the claims asserted in the action. The motion court held that the releases were broad and covered plaintiffs’ claim to the money alleged

By Jonathan H. Freiberger On January 5, 2022, the Second Department decided Citibank, N.A. v. Kerszko . The appeal in Citibank raised numerous “interesting and unusual issues,” but the focus of today’s article is on an issue recognized by the Second Department to be addressed by it for the first time: “whether the presentment to a court of a proposed ex parte order to show cause for an order of reference, which is rejected by the court for defects inherent in the papers, qu

By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog’s December 17, 2021, article entitled: “ Second Department Holds that Envelopes Containing Pre-Foreclosure Notices to Borrowers Pursuant to RPAPL 1304 Cannot Contain Any Other Notices Or Information ,” discussed Bank or America, N.A. v. Kessler , in which the Second Department held that RPAPL 1304 ’s mailing requirements for the statutory notices contemplated thereby are to be strictly construed. kessler, and the blog articles hyperlinked

By: Jeffrey M. Haber To allege a cause of action based on fraud, plaintiffs must assert “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. 1 To withstand a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must satisfy each element of the claim. One of the most difficult elements

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Generally speaking, usury statutes prevent excessive interest from being charged on a loan. The New York Court of Appeals has noted that “ tatutes prohibiting usurious loans were enacted in the 15 th century England, became part of New York’s colonial history, and have remained since” and that “ heir purpose is to protect desperately poor people from the consequences of their own desperation.” Seidel v. 18 East 17 th Street Owners, Inc. , 79 N.Y.2d

To determine whether a transaction constitutes a usurious loan, it “must be ‘considered in its totality and judged by its real character, rather than by the name, color, or form which the parties have seen fit to give it.’”

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Followers of this Blog know that we frequently address issues involving residential mortgage foreclosure. Actions involving the pre-foreclosure requirements of RPAPL 1304 are frequently decided by the Appellate Courts in New York and, accordingly, are analyzed in our articles. See, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . As previously noted

By: Jeffrey M. Haber A forum selection clause is contractual provision that sets forth the location designated by the parties for dispute resolution. Such clauses can be found in virtually every type of contract, e.g. , employment agreements, commercial contracts, and purchase and sale agreements. Parties require forum selection clauses to reduce litigation expenses, avoid adverse laws, and mitigate the risks associated with unknown judges and/or juries. Under New York law, “

By Jonathan H. Freiberger There are two “components and constitutional predicates of personal jurisdiction.” Keane v. Kamin , 94 N.Y.2d 263, 265 (1999). “One component involves service of process, which implicates due process requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard.” Id. (citations omitted). Even though a defendant may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, dismissal may be sought “based on the claim that service was not properly effectuated.” Id. (cit

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, one of the elements of a fraud claim is reliance. In the typical case, the defendant makes a false or misleading statement directly to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff claims to rely on. In the less frequent case, the misrepresentation of fact is made to a third party that relied on the alleged fraudulent statement. The question is whether, in that circumstance, a plaintiff can state a fraud cause of action, despite the abs

By Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, to recover damages for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “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.” [1] When a plaintiff contends that he or she was fraudulently induced to take some action, such as enter

By Jonathan H. Freiberger A major concern raised by potential clients when deciding whether to commence litigation is whether they are entitled to recoup their legal fees if they prevail. This issue was recently addressed in our BLOG article entitled: “ ’Can I Sue ‘Em For My Legal Fees?’ ,” in which we explained, inter alia , that: Clients are often dismayed to learn that attorney’s fees are not generally recoverable in litigation under the “American Rule,” because “ n the U

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On June 5, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held that claims for disgorgement imposed as a sanction for violation of the federal securities laws must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrues. 1 In doing so, the Court concluded that disgorgement “in the securities enforcement context is a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of Section 2462” of the U.S. Code. In concluding that disgorgement is a penalty, the Supreme Court looked at two factors. F

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In past articles, we have discussed the necessity of pleading the “who”, “what”, “when” and “how” of an alleged fraud. See , e.g. , here . In many respects, the requirement to plead the “who”, “what”, “where”, and “how” of an alleged fraud, primarily relates to the first element of the claim – falsity. 1 In this regard, a plaintiff alleging fraud must allege the time, place, and content of the defendant’s false representations, as well as the details of

By Jonathan H. Freiberger In this Blog’s article entitled: “ Revive a Time-Barred Claim Using § 17-101 of New York’s General Obligations Law ,” we discussed the general purpose of statutes of limitations, noting that: “The Statute of Limitations was enacted to afford protection to defendants against defending stale claims after a reasonable period of time had elapsed during which a person of ordinary diligence would bring an action. The statutes embody an important policy of

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Earlier this month, we wrote about how courts enforce contracts that are clear and unambiguous. The title of the article, “ Contracts That Say What They Mean, Mean What They Say ”, aptly describes this fundamental principle of contract interpretation. After all, a contract that is clear and unambiguous on its face reflects the intent of the parties. 1 And, the courts will enforce the parties’ intent when it is plainly written in the agreement. Courts wi

By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog frequently writes about decisions related to residential mortgage foreclosure actions. < Here =">Here</a>" and="and" the="the" articles="articles" hyperlinked="hyperlinked" therein.="therein."> One frequent topic that is always ripe for treatment is the repeated failure of lenders to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 due to shortcomings in the evidence presented on their prima facie case. Suffice it to say, on N