Sometimes a fraud is so undetectable that even an expert hired to assist in due diligence activities can be the victim of fraud. That’s what happened in VXI Lux Holdco, S.A.R.L. v. SIC Holdings, LLC , 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 03294 (1st Dept. May 25, 2021) ( here ). VXI Lux arose from plaintiff’s $112 million purchase of Symbio S.A. (“Symbio”) from defendants. Plaintiff alleged that defendants, faced with a Chinese government audit, engaged in fraud to hide the fact that they had

As we have discussed in numerous posts, plaintiffs alleging breach of contract and fraud risk having the latter cause of action dismissed because it is duplicative of the former one. Plaintiffs can avoid this fate by alleging: a legal duty owed by the defendant that is separate and apart from the duty to perform under the contract or a duty that is collateral or extraneous to the contract; and damages that are different from the contract damages. In Principia Partners LLC v.

Frequently, individuals and entities (principals) act through agents to conduct business. When litigation arises from such business, the third parties with whom the agent interacted, often seek to hold the agent liable for any damages that are suffered. The law is clear that “an agent for a disclosed principal will not be personally bound unless there is clear and explicit evidence of the agent’s intention to substitute or superadd his personal liability for, or to, that of

Readers of this Blog know that to state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, the complaint must allege “that the defendant intentionally made a material misrepresentation of fact in order to defraud or mislead the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the misrepresentation and suffered damages as a result.” Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 135 A.D.3d 535, 537 (1st Dept. 2016), aff’d , 29 N.Y.3d 137 (2017) (citations omitted). Significantl

This Blog frequently highlights cases analyzing the viability of fraud claims when contract claims are also made. See, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> . In Michael Davis Construction, Inc. v. 129 Parsonage Lane, LLC , decided on May 12, 2021, the Second Department dismissed defendant’s negligent construction counterclaim as duplicative of its breach of contract coun

Pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(5), “a party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground that the cause of action may not be maintained” because of collateral estoppel or res judicata. Under the doctrine of res judicata , 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

Many disciplinary proceedings involving lawyers relate to the mishandling of escrow funds and/or escrow accounts. Unfortunately, many disciplinary proceedings relating to escrow accounts result from intentional conduct on the lawyer’s part. However, mere inadvertence or inattention to escrow accounts could be problematic for attorneys as well. Therefore, it is important for lawyers to be familiar with all rules related to maintaining escrow accounts and holding escrow fun

“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” This saying best describes the duplication of claims doctrine that this Blog often writes about – that is, the doctrine whereby a fraud claim will duplicate a contract claim when “the only fraud alleged is that the defendant was not sincere when it promised to perform under the contract.” Mañas v. VMS Assoc., LLC , 53 A.D.3d 451, 453 (1st Dept. 2008) (quoting First Bank of Ams. v

Judiciary Law 470 , which, in its present form, was passed in 1909, but has its origins to the time when President Lincoln was in office, provides: A person, regularly admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor, in the courts of record of this state, whose office for the transaction of law business is within the state, may practice as such attorney or counsellor, although he resides in an adjoining state. This Blog has addresses Judiciary Law 470 < HERE =">HERE</a>">

Most simply stated, champerty is the prohibited practice of purchasing claims for the purpose of commencing litigation and has been described as “a venerable doctrine developed hundreds of years ago to prevent or curtail the commercialization of or trading in litigation.” Bluebird Partners, L.P. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A. , 94 N.Y.2d 726, 729 (2000) (describing the historical antecedents to New York’s present champerty rules). While an ages old doctrine dating back to med

A “recurring question” New York courts grapple with is whether the facts alleged in a complaint give rise to claims for both breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. Cronos Grp. v. XComIP, LLC , 156 A.D.3d 54, 56 (1st Dept. 2017). Readers of this Blog know that a fraud claim, which “ar from the same facts , s identical damages and d not allege a breach of any duty collateral to or independent of the parties’ agreements<,> is subject to dismissal as redundant of the c

When a person releases another from claims or the threat of claims, he/she is giving up the right to sue the other in connection with the subject of the release. Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 N.Y.3d 269, 276 (2011) (“Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release.”). A release effectively eliminates all claims against another that are possessed by the party giving the re

Promissory notes and mortgages, like many other contracts, frequently contain provisions requiring a non-breaching party to provide the breaching party with notice of their default as a condition precedent to taking any action to enforce rights as a result of the breach. Such action can include, but is not limited to, commencing legal action and/or accelerating the unpaid balance due under the note. Similarly, default notice provisions may require that, in certain circumsta

Under well-settled principles, summary judgment in lieu of complaint is available for an instrument for the payment of money only. In considering such a motion, the courts will look at the four corners of the instrument sued upon in determining whether the instrument qualifies as one for the payment of money only. here.=">here</a>."> In Yang v. Dai , 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 02125 (1st Dept. April 6, 2021) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department applied the foregoing pri

Corporations are legal entities distinct from their managers. As such, like any shareholder or investor, a corporation can buy shares in another corporation. When a corporation buys enough voting shares of another corporation to control that company, a parent - subsidiary relationship is created. Specifically, when a corporation buys less than 100%, but more than 50%, of another company, the latter company becomes a regular subsidiary of the former. If the corporation acquir

This Blog frequently addresses issues involving mortgage foreclosures in New York. < 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>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE

Although New York law does not provide for a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty or unjust enrichment claims, courts typically determine the applicable limitations period — three years under CPLR § 214 (4) or six years under CPLR § 213(1) — by analyzing the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks. IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. , 12 N.Y.3d 132, 139 (2009). Thus, for example, “ here the remedy sought is purely monetary in nature, court

When parties enter into contracts, they generally do so with the expectation of receiving the benefits of their respective bargains. Hopefully, these expectations are realized when all parties perform. A party’s failure to perform under a contract frequently results in a claim for breach of contract. “Generally, once a party to a contract has made a promise, that party must perform or respond in damages for its failure, even where unforeseen circumstances make performance

Fraud in the sale of securities. Such an allegation is often governed by an arbitration clause, requiring the parties to resolve their dispute before a FINRA tribunal. Not all investment claims, however, require resolution in arbitration. Sometimes the dispute can be adjudicated in a court of law. Such was the case in Pottorff v. Centra Fin. Group, Inc. , 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 01645 (1st Dept. Mar. 19, 2021 ( here ). Pottorff v. Centra Financial Group, Inc. Background Pottorff

The nature of the equitable remedy of specific performance as related to litigation concerning real estate contracts has been explained by this BLOG < here =">here</a>"> and also addressed, inter alia , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . Suffice it to say, specific performance is an equitable remedy requiring the breaching party to perform under a contract and is frequently awarded in situations where the subject matter of a contract is unique – making an awar