In Sire Spirits, LLC v. Beam Suntory, Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06297 (1st Dept. Nov. 18, 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of a motion to amend a complaint seeking damages for “diminution of enterprise value” due to the alleged fraud.

New York’s adoption of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act in 2019 modernized its Debtor and Creditor Law. The revised law allows creditors to void both actual and constructive fraudulent transfers. Constructive fraud focuses on inadequate value and insolvency, while actual fraud hinges on intent, assessed via “badges of fraud.”

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, a “cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation requires a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury.” When addressing the element of justifiable reliance, the “general rule” is th

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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 Emissions Reduction Corp. v. mCloud Tech. (USA) Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05457 (1st Dept. Oct. 7, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s fraud claim on the grounds of dupl

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On September 25, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced ( here ) that it charged the co-founders of Retail Ecommerce Ventures LLC (“REV”), and REV’s Chief Operating Officer (collectively, “Defendants”), with conducting a series of fraudulent securities offerings, misusing investor funds, and making Ponzi-like payments to investors. According to the SEC’s complaint , REV’s primary business was purchasing distressed retail compani

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.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In CJS Indus. Inc. v. Dolce , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05037 (1st Dept. Sept. 23, 2025 ( here ), plaintiff sued RS Custom Woodworking and its representatives for fraud after winning an arbitration award. Plaintiff alleged that defendants conspired to avoid payment by incorporating a new entity with a similar name between the initial and final arbitration awards. Plaintiff claimed the incorporation was part of a deliberate scheme to mislead and evade enforcemen

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: Jeffrey M. Haber 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.” For this reason, “ release should never be converted into a starting point for … litigation except under circumstances and under

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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. Plaintiff alleged that he worked over 2,300 hours between 2019 and 2023, including tasks beyond the scope of the agreement, and was promised payment in AVAX cry

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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. The cause of action accrues when “every element of the claim, including injury, can truthfully be alleged”, “even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or inj

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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. In doin

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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. The case arose from a failed joint venture between One River Run Acquisition, LLC (“ORRA”) and Greenwich Group International LLC (“GGI”) to develop a luxury resort in Colorado. In its countercla

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Skyview Capital, LLC v. Conduent Business Servs., LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03291 (1st Dept. June 03, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed various issues concerning fraud causes of action with which readers of this Blog are familiar: the duplication doctrine, justifiable reliance and disclaimer clauses. As discussed below, Skyview Capital arose from defendant’s sale to plaintiff of certain assets, namely, customer care ca

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine Yudkin v. Evergreen Terrace 888 Corp. , 2025 NY Slip Op 03223 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025) ( here ), and Lapin v. Verner , 2025 NY Slip Op 03184 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025) ( here ). 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. Yudkin v. Evergree Terrace 888 Corp. “A defendant who moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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) ( here ), discussed below, knowledge of falsity ( i.e. , scienter) and reliance were the elements at issue. First Trinity concerned the assignment of lottery winnings. A form

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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 compla

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

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On April 3, 2025, the Appellate Division, First Department considered an appeal of the dismissal of a complaint involving the disputed authenticity of a painting (the “Work”) by the deceased artist Cy Twombly (“Twombly”). In Grosso v. Cy Twombly Found. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 02007 (Apr. 03, 2025) ( here ), the Court unanimously affirmed the motion court’s dismissal of a complaint brought by the child of a parent who purchased works of art, including the Wor

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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 false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury.” The claim must pleaded with particularity. Conclusory allegations will not suffice. Neither will allegations based on information and