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.”

The allure of guaranteed profits from sophisticated crypto asset and foreign exchange trading served as the underlying predicate for the claims asserted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) against Ramil Palafox (“Defendant”), the founder of Praetorian Group International Corporation (“PGI Global”), a now-defunct entity he controlled, in S.E.C. v. Palafox, Case 1:25-cv-00681 (E.D. Va. 2025). The case marks the first crypto enforcement action under the new Chairma

A Ponzi scheme is intended to give investors the false impression that their investment is profitable. In a Ponzi scheme, the fraudster/promoter pays early investors with money that the investor believes is the return on his/her/its investment. In actuality, the money used to pay the investor comes from the investor’s own principal investment dollars or the pooled investment dollars of subsequent investors.

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: Jeffrey M. Haber It is well settled that the parties to an agreement may freely select any forum to resolve any disputes regarding the interpretation or performance of the agreement. A forum selection clause is prima facie valid “unless-it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging

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: Jeffrey M. Haber On April 16, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or Commission”) announced ( here ) that its Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (“OIEA”) had unveiled an anti-fraud public service campaign to warn investors about the impact relationship investment scams can have on their financial future. As explained in the release, “ elationship investment scams typically involve a ‘long con’ in which scammers reach out online or through text messa

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It has long been the law that the business judgment rule applies to the decisions made by boards of directors of residential cooperatives and condominiums. “The business judgment rule ‘bars judicial inquiry into actions of corporate directors taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate furtherance of corporate purposes.’” “ ourts must defer to a board’s determination if it was taken in furtherance of the corpo

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

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: Jonathan H. Freiberger The term “venue” in the context of litigation refers to the location where the trial will take place. In general, and as previously described in prior articles, Venue, which is governed by Article 5 of the CPLR , is initially chosen by the plaintiff at the commencement of the action. Sometimes an improper venue is chosen by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the defendant can move to change venue to a proper venue. CPLR 510(1) ; see also Kidd v.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Idi v. Sela , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01890 (1st Dept. Apr. 1, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed an issue of contract interpretation that this Blog often examines: enforcing written agreements that are complete, clear, and unambiguous on their face. Under New York law, written agreements are construed in accordance with the parties’ intent . “The best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in