In Bardy v. Bonnem, the plaintiff sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for an ownership option in a drive-thru coffee business. The motion court upheld the agreement based on an email proposal orally accepted by the plaintiff and partial performance. On appeal, the Second Department modified the motion court’s order, finding the email lacked essential terms to satisfy New York’s Statute of Frauds (GOL § 5-701) and that the contract could not be performed within one yea

This BLOG frequently writes about mortgage foreclosure, generally, and RPAPL 1304, specifically

In One River Run Acquisition, LLC v. Milde, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03653 (1st Dept. June 17, 2025) (here), the Appellate Division, First Department reinstated counterclaims for fraud and fraudulent transfers after they had been dismissed at the motion court level.

Generally speaking, a party is bound by the terms of a contract[1] to which it is a party. Thus, contracts should be enforced according to their terms when they are “clear and unambiguous”.This is so even when a party fails to read the contract prior to executing same (Id. at 5,*7 and 11) or if the signer does not understand the English language.

CPLR 3213 allows a plaintiff to move for summary judgment before the complaint is filed, directly challenging the defendant’s ability to contest the underlying claim. It bypasses traditional pleading and discovery and is available when the action is based on an instrument for the payment of money only.[2] The purpose of CPLR 3213 “is to provide an accelerated procedure where liability for a certain sum is clearly established by the instrument itself.”

In New York, the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims varies by remedy: three years for monetary relief, six years for equitable or fraud-based claims. A claim accrues when the fiduciary openly repudiates their duty or when damages occur. In Lambos v. Karabinis, a case that we examine today, the court found no clear repudiation of fiduciary duties, so the statute of limitations had not begun to run.

Discovery, an important part of the litigation process, enables litigants to collect information to assist in the prosecution and defense of a case. Because full disclosure is important, there are penalties for abusing the disclosure process. Today’s BLOG article focusses on spoliation[1] of evidence.

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine Yudkin v. Evergreen Terrace 888 Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 03223 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025), and Lapin v. Verner, 2025 NY Slip Op 03184 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025). Yudkin involved the statute of limitations for fraud and the continuing wrong doctrine. Lapin involved the failure to plead the elements of a fraud claim.

In today’s Blog, we revisit the requirement in RPAPL 1351(1) that a foreclosure sale occur within 90 days of the date of the judgment of foreclosure and sale.

A claim for fraud requires “a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff and damages.” In First Trinity Life Ins. Co. v. Advance Funding LLC, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03133 (1st Dept. May 22, 2025), discussed below, knowledge of falsity (i.e., scienter) and reliance were the elements at issue.

In Libman v. Hershey Co., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 31769(U), (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County May 5, 2025) (here), the motion court was asked to consider whether a front-of-the-package label on the Twizzlers candy wrapper violated General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties to do something (e.g., provide goods or services) in exchange for a benefit. When one or more parties to a contract fail to perform a term in their agreement, they are in breach of that agreement.

In today’s article we will discuss Yesmin v. Aliobaba, LLC, an Opinion and Order rendered on May 14, 2025, in which the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that “a notice of pendency that was unexpired at the time of the foreclosure sale has no effect on the title acquired by a good faith purchaser for value from a sale conducted pursuant to the judgment of foreclosure and sale.”

Today’s article relates to a decision in a mortgage foreclosure action[1] that combines numerous concepts about which we have previously written.

In Tiburcio v. Grant Ave. Bronx Realty Corp., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 02669 (1st Dept. May 01, 2025) (here), the Appellate Division, First Department was asked to decide whether the statute of limitations expired on all causes of action alleged by the plaintiff or whether the continuing wrong doctrine applied to toll the applicable limitations periods. As discussed below, the Court held that the continuing wrong doctrine to did not apply to save the complaint from dismissal.

The tedious task of compiling hard copies of exhibits to annex to motion papers in supreme court litigation practice was ameliorated in 2014 when the CPLR was amended to permit litigants, in efiled cases, to simply refer in their briefs and affirmations to docket numbers on the efiling system.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The elements of a claim for breach of contract are straightforward. The movant must establish: (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract, (3) the defendant’s breach of the contract, and (4) damages resulting from the defendant’s breach. As readers of this Blog know, “ hen the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found within the four corners of the contract, g

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article revisits statute of limitations issues and FAPA [1] in residential mortgage foreclosure actions [2] . Briefly stated, a mortgage foreclosure action is governed by a six-year statute of limitations. CPLR 213(4) ; see also Anglestone Real Estate Venture Partners Corp. v. Bank of New York Melon , 221 A.D.3d 943, 946 (2 nd Dep’t 2023). When mortgage payments are payable in installments, the six-year period runs from each missed paymen

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses a property owner’s right to cancel a recorded mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) and whether a mortgagee is “is entitled to recover sums expended to preserve and maintain an allegedly abandoned property under equitable and quasi-contractual theories.” As discussed in prior articles, mortgages on real property are frequently delivered to lenders to stand as security for the repayment obligations evidenced by a promissory no

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On July 8, 2019, this Blog wrote an article titled, “First Department Unanimously Affirms Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claims” ( here ). The article examined the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department in BML Properties Ltd. v. China Construction America Inc. , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 05339 (1st Dept. July 2, 2019), in which the Court (as the title states) affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration