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

Today, we consider Tahari v. 860 Fifth Ave. Corp., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05584 (1st Dept. Oct. 9, 2025), 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 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 Dodobayeva v. Rubinoff, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05219 (2d Dept. Oct. 1, 2025), we explore the legal concept of fraud in the execution. Fraud in the execution, or fraud in the factum, occurs when a person is misled into signing a document without understanding its nature.

In Macklowe Inv. Props. LLC v. MIP 57th Dev. Acquisition LLC, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05192 (1st Dept. Sept. 30, 2025), 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 condition.

In CJS Indus. Inc. v. Dolce, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05037 (1st Dept. Sept. 23, 2025, plaintiff sued RS Custom Woodworking and its representatives for fraud after winning an arbitration award. Both the motion court and the Appellate Division, First Department, found that plaintiff failed to plead fraud with the required particularity in compliance with CPLR 3016(b).

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.

Today’s article is about Nuruzzaman v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., an action that involves numerous areas of the law about which we frequently write -- mortgage foreclosure, FAPA, RPAPL 1501(4), CPLR 205(a), CPLR 205-A and statutes of limitation.

In Celauro v. Celauro, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 04870 (Sept. 10, 2025), a minority shareholder of a family-owned business alleged that company executives operated an illicit cash business, diverted profits and deprived shareholders of distributions/dividends. The motion court dismissed most of the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding many of the allegations to be time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations and the surviving claims too speculative.

In New York, as in most jurisdictions, statutes of limitation serve as a cutoff point for initiating legal action. In business litigation, parties often encounter statutes of limitation issues involving, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims.

Obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a critical aspect of litigation. There are two components of personal jurisdiction.

Pursuant to CPLR 3213, a plaintiff may commence an action “based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment” by filing a summons and motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In BLDG 44 Developers LLC v. Pace Companies N.Y., LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op 32881(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 25, 2025) ( here ), BLDG 44 Developers LLC sued Pace Companies New York, LLC for breach of contract, seeking approximately $16 million in consequential damages related to delays in a construction project on E. 44th Street, New York, N.Y. BLDG, the project owner, was a third-party beneficiary to a subcontract between Pace and Noble Construction G

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Finkelstein v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op 32882(U) (Sup. Ct., July 30, 2025) ( here ), plaintiff alleged that he was underpaid on his investment in a residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trust due to the improper exercise of termination rights by the trust’s servicers. Plaintiff claimed they excluded deferred principal and interest balances from the termination price, repackaged the remaining loans, and profited from new trusts. Th

The Second Department has stated that an “RPAPL 1304 notice is a notice pursuant to the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act (Real Property Law § 265-a), the underlying purpose of which is to afford greater protections to homeowners confronted with foreclosure.”

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On occasion, we examine procedural matters that have an impact on the substantive rights of the parties. In Richardson v. Beal , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32804(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 24, 2025) ( here ), the procedural matter at issue concerned the date on which a filing is deemed to be filed. As discussed below, the date on which a filing is deemed filed might surprise you. Overview In Richardson v. Beal , plaintiffs sought a default judgment against

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Southgate Owners Corp. v. Esposito , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32750(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 24, 2025) ( here ), plaintiff sued defendant, a shareholder in its cooperative building, seeking a declaratory judgment that 80 additional shares had been properly allocated to her unit following a 1996 expansion of her unit into terrace space. Plaintiff claimed that defendant refused to accept the allocation and pay her pro rata share of expenses and sought a

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Folks buy insurance to minimize loss in the event of occurrences that may cause injury to individuals or property. I would venture to say that most of the time, insureds do not read their policies and do not know the precise coverages they have purchased. While sometimes insurance is purchased directly from a carrier, many insureds rely on insurance agents or brokers to, inter alia , procure insurance for them. What happens, however, when a casualty

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s fraud notes, we examine two cases: K.M. v. Ursuline School of New Rochelle , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 04643 (2d Dept. Aug. 13, 2025) ( here ), and Three C, LLC v. City Settlement Serv., Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 04678 (Aug. 13, 2025) ( here ). Ursuline involved the failure to satisfy the elements of a fraud claim. To state a claim for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger In today’s BLOG, we will address the enforcement of foreign judgments (i.e., judgments obtained outside the State of New York) in New York. Simply stated, armed with a money judgment, a judgment creditor can employ numerous available procedures to assist in the collection of the outstanding judgment debt. Article 52 of the CPLR (Enforcement of Money Judgments) provides for many enforcement options. Judgments obtained in New York can be enforced imm