In closely held family businesses, trust often substitutes for formalities. This phenomenon was on display in Homapour v. 3M Props., LLC, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 04371 (1st Dept. July 9, 2026), where the formality of “read-before-you-sign” was tested. The dispute centered on allegations that a managing member repeatedly presented family members with signature pages detached from amended LLC operating agreements while assuring them that “nothing had changed.”

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two recent appellate court decisions that highlight the role statutes of limitations play in fraud-based claims. Specifically, we explore how New York courts evaluate timeliness under CPLR 213(8), including the six-year limitations period and the two-year discovery rule, as well as the three-year limitations period governing General Business Law § 349 claims.

In today’s article, we examine the interplay between releases, anti-reliance clauses, and the special facts doctrine under New York law, using the Appellate Division, First Department’s decision in Leinhardt v. Socure, Inc., 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03881 (1st Dept. June 18, 2026), as a focal point. The case addresses a recurring tension in fraud litigation: whether a party who later claims to have been misled can overcome the barriers imposed by a broad release and explicit discla

In New York, the doctrine of caveat emptor — “let the buyer beware” — remains an important principle in residential real estate transactions. Unlike many other states that require extensive seller disclosures, New York adheres to a more traditional approach: absent fraud, active concealment, or a special relationship, a seller has no general duty to volunteer information about defective conditions in the property.

On June 5, 2026, the SEC charged an investment adviser and related entities with a multi-year fraud involving a pooled investment fund that raised about $4 million from 28 investors. The SEC alleged the defendant misappropriated and commingled funds, concealed losses exceeding $3.6 million, and diverted assets for personal use.

In Rubin v. Hodes, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of fraud and loan repayment claims brought by a former majority shareholder of a healthcare company. However, the courts never reached the merits of those claims because the plaintiff failed to disclose his stock interests and promissory notes in a prior bankruptcy proceeding.

Under New York law, alter ego liability, often referred to as piercing the corporate veil, is a doctrine that permits a court to disregard the corporate form and hold an individual officer, director, or owner liable where that person exercised domination and control over the entity and used that domination and control to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the plaintiff.

Merger clauses and the duplication of claims doctrine often operate to limit the availability of fraudulent inducement claims alongside breach of contract claims.

Affinity fraud is a form of financial fraud that relies on social connections and trust. It most often occurs within identifiable groups, such as religious, cultural, or ethnic communities, or social organizations, where members share common values, experiences, or identities. Rather than approaching targets as strangers, those promoting the scheme position themselves as insiders, using familiarity and perceived credibility to create comfort and reduce skepticism.

In Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. TPG Capital Mgt., L.P., 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 02775 (1st Dept. May 5, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, examined the limits of fraud claims arising from complex private‑equity financing transactions.

Conclusory allegations, even when bolstered by informal communications, such as text messages, will not substitute for well-pleaded facts showing materially misleading conduct or a specific misrepresentation.

Under New York law, fraud claims are not duplicative of breach of contract claims when they are based on misrepresentations of present fact collateral to the contract, even if they seek the same damages. Applying that rule, the Appellate Division, First Department held in Metropolitan Partners Group Admin., LLC v. Nerney, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 02340 (1st Dept. Apr. 16, 2026), that plaintiff adequately pleaded both fraud and breach of contract claims ...

On April 14, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department issued a decision in which it reiterated the limits of fraud claims in the corporate governance context. In Massoumi v. Ganju, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 02208 (1st Dept. Apr. 14, 2026), the Court unanimously affirmed summary judgment dismissing fraud claims brought by a former chief executive officer who alleged that his fellow executives and directors misled him in advance of a board meeting that resulted in his removal.

Courts will dismiss breach of contract claims based on nondisclosure agreements where the plaintiff fails to identify specific confidential information allegedly misused. And fraud claims fail as a matter of law when a sophisticated party relies on oral assurances contradicted by written disclosures.

Financial abuse of seniors and other vulnerable adults is among the most damaging and the least visible forms of investor harm. It arises when age, illness, cognitive decline, or dependence on trusted professionals erodes an individual’s ability to evaluate advice or resist coercion, even while legal capacity nominally remains intact.

New York limits judicial intrusion into arbitration awards, reflecting the core principles of finality, deference to arbitrators’ rulings, and the narrow grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511.

In today’s article, we examine the elements and heightened pleading requirements for fraudulent inducement claims under New York law, with a focus on the justifiable reliance element.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Financial exploitation of seniors and vulnerable adults is a significant problem.¹ It is considered by many to be an insidious non-violent form of elder abuse in the United States. While a landmark MetLife study initially estimated that older Americans lose roughly $2.6 to $2.9 billion each year to financial exploitation, more recent research suggests that the cost may be materially higher, potentially exceeding $36 billion annually. These numbers, whethe

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, affinity fraud and Ponzi schemes often intersect because each reinforces the weaknesses of the other, creating a powerful and deceptive form of financial exploitation.¹ Affinity fraud is a form of financial deception that exploits the trust and social cohesion within a close‑knit group. These groups may be defined by shared religious beliefs, cultural or ethnic identity, professional affiliations, or community networks. The f

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Liability for aiding and abetting a fraud is distinct from liability for committing the underlying fraud itself. This theory of liability recognizes that a defendant may substantially contribute to fraudulent misconduct without personally making any misrepresentation/omission or directly deceiving the plaintiff. Thus, instead of requiring proof that the defendant was the maker of a false statement or omission, an aiding‑and‑abetting theory turns on wheth