top of page
All Posts
Fraud Notes: Alleging a Misrepresentation and Duplicative Damages
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
admin
Oct 10, 20257 min read


Participation in Arbitration Despite Earlier Litigation Waives Right To Contest Arbitration Award
By: Jeffrey M. Haber As we have noted in prior articles, New York has a “long and strong public policy favoring arbitration”. Indeed, New York “favors and encourages arbitration as a means of conserving the time and resources of the courts and the contracting parties.” “Therefore, New York courts interfere as little as possible with the freedom of consenting parties to submit disputes to arbitration.” “Nonetheless, ‘ ike contract rights generally, a right to arbitration

Jeffrey Haber
Oct 8, 20255 min read


Enforcement News: Company That Purchases Distressed Retail Companies Charged With Conducting Fraudulent Securities Offerings, Misusing Investor Funds, and Making Ponzi-Like Payments to Investors
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

Jeffrey Haber
Oct 5, 20252 min read


Fraud in the Execution and The Two-Year Discovery Rule
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.

Jeffrey Haber
Oct 3, 20257 min read
Failure to Satisfy Condition Precedent Bars Breach of Contract Claim
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Macklowe Inv. Props. LLC v. MIP 57th Dev. Acquisition LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05192 (1st Dept. Sept. 30, 2025) ( here ), the plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, sued pursuant to a letter agreement for a leasing commission after securing a tenant for defendants’ property. The letter agreement required satisfaction of a condition precedent before payment of the commission: execution of a leasing commission agreement. Plaintiff never fulfilled this cond
admin
Sep 30, 20256 min read
Plaintiff Pleads Scheme to Defraud Sufficient to Put Defendants on Notice of the Conduct of Which They are Accused, But Nevertheless Fails to Plead The Elements of Fraud with Particularity
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
admin
Sep 28, 20255 min read
Court Decides Gateway Issue of Arbitrability
By: Jeffrey M. Haber Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and Article 75 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), an action should be dismissed or stayed, and the claims referred to arbitration when they are subject to a broad, mandatory arbitration provision in the parties’ governing agreement. The FAA provides that written agreements to arbitrate are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” and “places arbitration agreements ‘upon the same footing as other co
admin
Sep 24, 20257 min read
Court Holds Investment Banking Services Engagement Letter is Not "an Instrument for The Payment of Money Only"
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Jefferies LLC v. Blaize Holdings, Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 33272(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Sept. 3, 2025 ( here ), the New York Supreme Court held that an engagement letter concerning the provision of investment banking services did not qualify as an “instrument for the payment of money only” under CPLR 3213, which allows for expedited summary judgment. The motion court found that the engagement letter imposed mutual obligations and required performa
admin
Sep 22, 20255 min read
Timing is Everything – CPLR 205(a), CPLR 205-A and FAPA
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
admin
Sep 19, 20256 min read
bottom of page
