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.

In today’s article, we examine BLDG 44 Developers LLC v. Pace Companies N.Y., LLC, a case involving consequential damages.

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. The servicers argued that the governing agreement barred the action because it included a “no action” clause.

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.”

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.

In Southgate Owners Corp. v. Esposito, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32750(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 24, 2025), 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.

This article examines the liability of insurance brokers who fail to procure requested coverage. In New York, brokers generally owe clients a duty to obtain specifically requested insurance but have no ongoing duty to advise unless a "special relationship" exists.

In today’s installment of Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving claims of fraud: K.M. v. Ursuline School of New Rochelle and Three C, LLC v. City Settlement Serv., Inc.

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 immed

This Blog has written frequently about the substance and scope of general releases. In New York, “a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release.” If “the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a ‘jural act’ binding on the parties.”

Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”), which, inter alia, “allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are “‘united in interest.’"”

Folks enter into brokerage agreements all the time. The most familiar situation involving brokerage agreements are those related to the sale of real property. Litigation over brokerage agreements often involves the payment of commissions.

In Korea Inv. & Sec. Co., Ltd. v. Seabury Capital Group LLC, the court dismissed a fraud complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, finding New York lacked a substantial nexus to the alleged misconduct.

Appearing in an action may give rise to a waiver of a litigant’s right to challenge the court’s jurisdiction over the litigant. As explained in prior blog articles, it is axiomatic that a “plaintiff appears [in an action] merely by bringing it.”

Today’s article relates to summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213

In Wilburger v. Ava Labs, Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51072(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 3, 2025) (here), plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent inducement related to unpaid compensation for services rendered under an Independent Contractor Agreement.

Under New York law, an action based upon fraud must be commenced within six years of the date the cause of action accrued, or within two years of the time the plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence, whichever is greater.

This BLOG has written extensively on a wide variety of issues in the area of mortgage foreclosure. One particular area that has been the subject of numerous articles is RPAPL 1304.

In Lopez v. O’Sullivan, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32178(U) (Sup. Ct., Suffolk County) (here), the court declined to dismiss fraud claims, among others, finding that plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim for such relief against the defendants. The court determined that plaintiff provided detailed allegations of misrepresentations made by defendants, which induced him to enter into transactions that ultimately deprived him of ownership of his property.