Distinguishing between direct and derivative claims is not easy. Sometimes, the difficulty arises because of the entity involved. For example, in the LLC context, there are fiduciary relationships ( e.g. , managing member and non-managing member) that will support a direct action in circumstances that might otherwise require a derivative action. E.g. , Pokoik v. Pokoik , 115 A.D.3d 428 (1st Dept. 2014); Salm v. Feldstein , 20 A.D.3d 469, 470 (2d Dept. 2005). Other times, the

On July 18, 2019, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division, decided Shyer v. Shyer , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32138(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 18, 2019) ( here ), a third-party action involving allegations of fraudulent concealment relating to the failure to disclose material information about the deteriorating health of a company executive for the purpose of securing about $150,000 in annual benefits. The company, Zyloware Corp. (“Zylowa

Following the stock market crash in 1929, Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”) and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”). Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Emps. Ret. Fund , 138 S. Ct. 1061, 1066 (2018). The 1933 Act has two primary objectives: (1) to provide transparency in financial statements so investors can make informed decisions about securities being offered for public sale; and (2) to address misstatements and omissions in the secur

McGuckin v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch. was decided by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on July 17, 2019. The facts of McGuckin , at least from the Second Department’s decision, seem rather straight forward. The plaintiff, who was a passenger in a vehicle owned by Carol Giambrone and driven by Douglas Giambrone, was injured when the vehicle was in an accident. The vehicle was insured by defendant Privilege under a policy that provided at the time of

Readers of this Blog know that, as a general matter, New York courts will not permit a fraudulent inducement claim to survive a motion to dismiss when the claim arises from a breach of contract. Indeed, courts routinely dismiss a fraudulent inducement claim where “ he existence of a valid and enforceable written contract govern a particular subject matter” and the recovery sought arises out of the same facts and circumstances. Clark-Fitzpatrick v. Long Is. , 70 N.Y.2d 382 (1

Working with friends can be both rewarding and challenging. The comfort that brings friends together often is replaced by the stress and rigors of running a business. Because friends have a history together, professional disagreements often become heated, especially when there are pent up issues or grudges that one holds about the other. Similarly, the character traits that created the friendship are often replaced by a professional (and, some would say, ugly) demeanor that w

Frequently, important terms of a contract are intended to be incorporated by reference into other documents. Litigation frequently arises when one party disputes whether the terms of extrinsic documents were indeed made part of the executed agreement. The parties in Movado Group, Inc. v. Mozaffarian , 92 A.D.3d 431 (1 st Dep’t 2012), entered into a credit agreement in which defendants “expressly acknowledged receipt of, and agreed to be bound by, terms and conditions conta

On July 9, 2019, the Appellate Division, First Department, issued three decisions involving claims of fraud and/or fraudulent inducement that piqued this Blog’s interest. One case involved whether a fraudulent inducement claim duplicated a contract claim ( Man Advisors, Inc. v. Selkoe , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 05483 (1st Dept. July 9, 2019) ( here ), while the other two involved the justifiable reliance element of a fraud cause of action ( Mann v. Thomas-Senior , 2019 N.Y. Slip O

Sometimes state appellate courts affirm or modify lower court decisions without providing much in the way of analysis. With overburdened dockets and substantially similar issues being decided, it is no surprise these courts issue short decisions that have more value to the parties than to the bar. Such is the case in BML Properties Ltd. v. China Construction America Inc. , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 05339 (1st Dept. July 2, 2019) ( here ). Overview and the First Department’s Decisi

On July 1, 2019, this Blog wrote about Hoffman v. AT&T Inc. , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 31811(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County, June 21, 2019) ( here ). Hoffman involved a motion, under CPLR § 2201, to stay an action filed in state court, alleging claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”), in favor of a parallel action filed in federal court, alleging claims under the 1933 Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). As discussed in the article, the Hoff

In mortgage foreclosure actions, and other actions in which a party is suing on a promissory note (or other negotiable instruments) ( a “Note”), a plaintiff must allege that it is in possession of the underlying Note in order to establish that it has standing to prosecute the action. As this Blog has previously noted in the Blog < The=">The" Second="Second" Department="Department" Denies="Denies" Summary="Summary" Judgment="Judgment" to="to" Another="Another" Foreclosing="Fo

On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund , 138 S. Ct. 1061, 1069 (2018), in which it unanimously held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) does not strip state courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over class actions involving claims exclusively brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”), and does not allow for the removal of those cases to federal court.

Since the early 20th century, a plaintiff alleging fraud in New York can recover only the actual pecuniary loss sustained as a result of the misrepresentation or omission, i.e. , the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket damages. Reno v. Bull , 226 N.Y. 546 (1919); see also Continental Cas. Co. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP , 15 N.Y.3d 264 (2010). The damages recoverable under the out-of-pocket rule are intended to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not for w

Rule 3213 of the CPLR – which permits a litigant to move for summary judgment in lieu of filing a complaint to streamline litigation in situations where the statute is applicable – provides: When an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment, the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint. The summons served with such motion papers shall require the d

Lawyers should be mindful that the signed writing aspect of CPLR 2104 can be satisfied by e-mails exchanged between counsel. CPLR 2104 provides, in relevant part that: An agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered. One of the first cases in New York to t

On November 18, 2018, this Blog wrote about Brown v. Cerebus Capital Management, LP , 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 32782 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 30, 2018) ( here ). Brown involved the grant of employment compensation that plaintiffs claimed, among other things, was part of a fraudulent scheme to deprive them of their benefits. The gravamen of the article pertained to the difference between the standards for pleading fraud with particularity under the Civil Practice Law and Rules (

Litigations often get settled before trial. When parties decide to settle their disputes, they typically agree to exchange mutual releases – i.e. , they agree to give up any claims they have, and may have, against each other. By exchanging releases, the parties to a settlement are, therefore, securing for themselves, and those bound by the release, complete peace from future litigation involving the same subject matter in their dispute. Generally, a “release constitutes a c

In Henry VI , William Shakespeare wrote, “ efer no time, delays have dangerous ends” - a quote apropos to a discussion of laches. “The doctrine of laches is an equitable doctrine which bars the enforcement of a right where there has been an unreasonable and inexcusable delay that results in prejudice to a party.” Skrodelis v. Norbergs , 272 A.D.2d 316 (2 nd Dep’t 2000). In Kverel v. Silverman (2 nd Dep’t May 29, 2019), the Appellate Division, Second Department, applied

Sometimes a decision goes in a direction that the reader does not expect. Bashian & Farber, LLP v. Syms , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 04348 (2d Dept. June 5, 2019) ( here ), is such a case. Bashian involved what appeared to be a straightforward case concerning an alleged fraud and fraudulent conveyance in the context of a fee dispute between a law firm and its former client. While the case involved the elements of those claims, its holding focused on the concept of scheme liability –

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 imaginable, 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 foreign judges and/or juries. Under New York law, “a