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

In 1975, the New York Legislature adopted Article 9 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) to replace the State’s prior class action mechanism. City of New York v. Maul , 14 N.Y.3d 499, 508 (2010). The Legislature did so because Section 1005, which remained virtually unchanged for more than a century, “had been judicially restricted over the years and was subject to inconsistent results.” Id . at 508-509, citing Sperry v. Crompton Corp. , 8 N.Y.3d 204, 210 (2007). By a

It has long been the law in New York that a party’s disclaimer of reliance on extra-contractual representations and omissions will not preclude a fraudulent inducement claim unless: (1) the disclaimer is specific to the fact alleged to be misrepresented or omitted; and (2) the alleged misrepresentation or omission does not concern facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the non-moving party. Basis Yield Alpha Fund v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. , 115 A.D.3d 128, 137 (1st Dept

In today’s post, this Blog looks at two cases decided by the Appellate Division, Second Department, involving the first element of a common law fraud and insurance fraud cause of action: the making of a misrepresentation of material fact. In Tsinias Enters. Ltd. v. Taza Grocery, Inc. , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 04020 (2d Dept. May 22, 2019) ( here ), the Court affirmed the dismissal of a fraud and fraudulent inducement action because the plaintiff failed to plead a misrepresentation

This Blog has written about the justifiable reliance element of a fraud cause of action on many occasions. We have noted that whether a plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentations and omissions of a defendant is a fact-intensive inquiry. DDJ Mgt., LLC v. Rhone Group L.L.C. , 15 NY3d 147, 155 (2010). In today’s post, we look at Buechel v. Sovereignty, LLC , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 31372(U) (Sup. Ct. Tompkins County May 16, 2019) ( here ), a case in which the issue was de

Obtaining jurisdiction over a corporation that is incorporated and headquartered outside of the state can be difficult. A plaintiff must plead and prove that the corporation purposefully availed itself of the resources of the state for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The failure to do so, as in Poms v. Dominion Diamond Corp. , Index No. 655733/2017, 2019 NY Slip Op 31364(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County May 15, 2019) ( here ), will result in dismissal o

In today’s post, this Blog takes a look at fraud allegations in foreclosure action involving two commercial mortgages that secured more than $24 million in indebtedness. Orchard Hotel LLC v. D.A.B. Group LLC , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 03893 (1st Dept. May 16, 2019) ( here ). Relevant to today’s article is the motion court’s denial of a motion to dismiss fraud-based cross-claims and the First Department’s affirmance of that decision. Orchard Hotel LLC v. D.A.B. Group LLC Background

On April 25, 2018, this Blog wrote about INTL FCStone Mkts., LLC v. Corrib Oil Co. Ltd. , 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30646(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Apr. 9, 2018) ( here .) The case involved a motion for summary judgment involving claims that Defendant, Corrib Oil Co. Ltd. (“Corrib”), owed the plaintiff, INTL FCStone Markets, LLC (“FCStone”), nearly $3.5 million in connection with investment in more than 800 derivatives transactions over a four-year period. In granting the motion, J

FOLLOW-UP – THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT’S, ENFORCEMENT OF WAIVER OF DECLARATORY RELIEF IN COMMERCIAL LEASE RESULTING IN THE DENIAL OF TENANT’S YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION APPLICATION Our February 9, 2018, Blog post, entitled: “ APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, ENFORCES WAIVER OF DECLARATORY RELIEF IN COMMERCIAL LEASE RESULTING IN THE DENIAL OF TENANT’S YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION ,” addressed the decision in 159 MP Corp. v. R

This Blog has previously written about the equitable estoppel doctrine in the context of the statute of limitations ( here ). See General Stencils v. Chiappa , 18 N.Y.2d 125, 128 (1966); Zumpano v. Quinn , 6 N.Y.3d 666, 674 (2006); Matter of Steyer , 70 N.Y.2d 990, 993 (1988). The doctrine has also been used as a basis to reject a jurisdictional defense. Matre v. Erie County Pub. Adm’r. , 283 A.D.2d 1025, 1026 (4th Dept. 2001) (applied to personal jurisdiction and statute of

In Siwiec v. United Rest. Group Inc. , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 31152(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings County Apr. 11, 2019) ( here ), the Court reminds litigants that if they want to bring a fraud claim along with a contract claim, they must allege misrepresentations that are collateral or extraneous to the contract. Siwiec involved a dispute over the management of a restaurant. According to the complaint, the parties met in May 2016, when Defendant, Christian Vega (“Vega”), the Chairman and C