Real Estate Litigation

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

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger On January 28, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department, decided Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Starr , a mortgage foreclosure action that addresses many of the issues raised in our prior BLOG articles. The borrower in Starr allegedly defaulted in her repayment obligations under a promissory note secured by a mortgage on real property. In 2009, the lender commenced a mortgage foreclosure action (the “First Action”). In 2010, the Fi

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger This BLOG has previously addressed the issue of a defendant’s appearance in an action – both formal and informal. In that regard, we have noted that it makes sense that a “plaintiff appears in an action merely by bringing it.” Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Hall , 185 A.D.3d 1006 (2 nd Dep’t 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Once served with process, a defendant must appear in an action to avoid a default. Section 320(a) of N

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Last Week in our BLOG article: “ Just When You Thought It Could Not Get More Unanimous, The Court of Appeals Determines that FAPA’s Retroactive Application Does Not Violate the Due Process or Contract Clauses of the United States Constitution or the Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process Under the New York Constitution – Part 1 ,” we discussed FAPA and the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N. A. , in which the Co

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Last Week in our BLOG article: “ It’s Unanimous – The Fourth Department Joins the Other Departments and Confirms the Retroactive Application of FAPA ,” we again discussed FAPA and noted that on November 25, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals decided two cases: Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank , and Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N. A. , in which the Court determined that retroactive application of FAPA’s provisions passes constitutional muster und

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger oday’s article is about MCLP Asset Co. v. Zaveri , an action that involves numerous areas of the law about which we frequently write -- mortgage foreclosure, FAPA, CPLR 205(a), CPLR 205-A and statutes of limitation. Statute of Limitations in Foreclosure Actions By way of brief background, and as previously written in this BLOG, an action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations. CPLR 213(4) ; see also Medina v. Bank

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger On October 31, 2025, the Supreme Court, Kings County, decided loanDepot.com LLC v. Ortner , a case addressing the meaning of the “taking proceedings” requirement of CPLR 3215(c) . By way of brief background, when a defendant defaults in appearing in an action, CPLR 3215(c) requires that the plaintiff act promptly to secure a default judgment. As previously discussed in prior BLOG articles, CPLR 3215(c) provides, in pertinent part, that: If the pla

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses 1995 Cam LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC , a case decided on October 21, 2025, by the New York Court of Appeals. In 1995 Cam , the Court held that the guaranty executed by guarantor was a “good guy” guaranty and, therefore, liability under the subject commercial lease ended with the tenant’s surrender of possession of the premises and not with the landlord’s acceptance of the surrender. By way of background, a “good guy” gua

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: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses M & T Bank v. Givens , a case decided on October 15, 2025, by the Appellate Division, Second Department. Givens addresses three issues encountered in mortgage foreclosure actions: motions for extensions of time pursuant to CPLR 2004 , the 90-day requirement to conduct foreclosure sales pursuant to RPAPL 1351(1) and the tolling of interest due to a lender’s delays in prosecuting its foreclosure action. CPLR 2004 CPLR 2004

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, we have written about many types of fraud over the years, such as affinity fraud, common law fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraudulent concealment, and securities fraud. Another type of fraud concerns fraud in the execution or fraud in the factum. Three years ago, we examined Paredes v. Vorhand , a case involving this legal principle ( here ). Since that time, we have not examined any cases involving fraud in the executio

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger 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 . Statute of Limitations in Foreclosure Actions By way of brief background, and as previously written in this BLOG, an action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations. CPL

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a critical aspect of litigation. There are two components of personal jurisdiction, which the New York Court of Appeals has succinctly described as follows: One component involves service of process, which implicates due process requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard. Typically, a defendant who is otherwise subject to a court's jurisdiction, may seek dismissal based on the claim that s

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger This BLOG has written extensively on a wide variety of issues in the area of mortgage foreclosure. While we have not written about RPAPL 1304 in a while, it has been the subject of numerous articles in the past. By way of brief background, and as has been previously discussed, 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 purpo

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger 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. By way of brief background, and as previously discussed in this BLOG, the 90-day requirement became effective in December of 2016. However, the rule does not apply in situations where the sale occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment. U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peralta , 191 A.D.3d 924,

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article relates to CPLR 321(c) , a topic we have addressed before < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . As previously discussed in this BLOG, once an attorney appears and becomes the attorney of record, the client is free to change counsel by filing with the clerk, a substitution of counsel stipulation, which must also be served on “the attorneys for all parties in the action or, if a party appears without an attorney, to the par

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Seasoned attorneys will get the reference in the title of this article to one of Maxwell Smart’s catch phrases from “Get Smart”, but most of the younger folks might not. In any event, the phrase seems prescient in light of a nuanced FAPA related change to CPLR 205 . As stated in prior BLOG articles, when an applicable statute of limitations expires during the pendency of an action, under certain circumstances, CPLR 205(a) permits the plaintiff to c

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger As readers of this BLOG know, we frequently address issues involving mortgage foreclosure, generally, and notices of pendency, specifically. Today’s article involves both issues with a sprinkle of sanctions. By way of background, and as explained in prior articles, a notice of pendency (or lis pendens ) is a provisional remedy available to litigants seeking a judgment that affects title to real property. 5303 Realty Corp. v. O&Y Equity Corp. , 64 N.

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger As readers of this BLOG know, we frequently address issues involving mortgage foreclosure and usury. Today’s article involves both issues. By way of background, and as explained in prior articles, usury statutes were developed to “protect desperately poor people from the consequences of their own desperation.” Seidel v. 18East 17 th Street Owners, Inc. , 79 N.Y.2d 735, 740 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “To successfully r

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger As readers of this BLOG know, we frequently address issues involved with mortgage foreclosure. Because of, inter alia , the frequency with which mortgages are bought, sold, assigned and otherwise transferred, one issue that frequently arises in mortgage foreclosure actions is whether the plaintiff has standing to commence its action. Briefly stated, “ tanding involves a determination of whether the party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizabl