By: Jeffrey M. Haber In International Business Machs. Corp. v. GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 06425 (1st Dept. Dec. 19, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department was asked to consider whether a contractual jury waiver provision applied to a claim for fraudulent inducement where the plaintiff did not seek to void or rescind the subject contracts if it prevailed on its fraudulent inducement claim, but instead attempted to enforce the contracts and

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger This BLOG has previously addressed issues related to proper licensure for contractors and the problems that arise for them if they perform work without a license. See, e.g. , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . As previously noted in prior articles, contractors are frequently required by municipalities to be licensed. Unlicensed home improvement contractors are precluded from collecting paym

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Two weeks ago, this Blog wrote about an enforcement action involving an investment adviser's former co-chief investment officer who had been charged with running a more than $600 million cherry-picking scheme (here). Today, this Blog examines another enforcement action involving a former investment adviser representative, charged with engaging in a fraudulent trade allocation scheme – i.e., cherry-picking scheme – wherein he benefitted himself in the amou

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In almost every litigation, the question that clients most often ask is whether they can get back their attorney’s fees. As we have explained in past articles ( e.g. , here , here , and here ), attorney’s fees are not generally recoverable in litigation under the “American Rule”. The American Rule “was originally derived from federal legislation passed in 1853 which recognized that ‘losing litigants were being unfairly saddled with exorbitant fees.’” Un

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s BLOG article is about Thorobird Grand LLC v. M. Melnick & Co. , a case decided by the Appellate Division, First Department, on December 12, 2024, and which involves mechanic’s liens. The Facts of Thorobird Plaintiff, as owner, hired defendant M. Melnick & Co., as contractor, on several projects. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, contractor was required to procure performance and payment bonds from a surety; in this case, defendant Federa

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we revisit some familiar principles concerning claims of fraudulent inducement. We will also examine the impact of a contractual exculpatory clause on the viability of a fraud claim, as well as the impact of contractual provision that negates the basis for a fraud claim. Our examination of these issues and principles is centered on MREF REIT Lender 2 LLC v. FPG Maiden Holdings LLC , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 06161 (1st Dept. Dec. 10, 2024) (

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Valkyrie AI LLC v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 06141 (1st Dept. Dec. 5, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed an order involving claims for unfair competition, tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business relations. As discussed below, the Court found that plaintiff stated a claim for unfair competition and tortious interference with contract against PwC but fa

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s BLOG article concerns CPLR 306-b . As previously explained in prior articles, actions or proceedings (collectively, “Actions”) are commenced by filing the initiatory papers with the appropriate county clerk. CPLR 304(a) . Once the Action is commenced, the plaintiff is required to serve the initiatory papers on the defendant, and generally such service must occur within 120 days after the Action is commenced. CPLR 306-b. “If service is not

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It has been some time since we have examined cherry-picking – a practice that can be an effective way to generate returns as well as a practice that is fraudulent and violative of the federal securities laws. Therefore, today, we examine SEC v. Leech, Case 1:24-cv-09017 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2024), a case involving the former co-chief investment officer of an investment adviser, who has been charged with running a more than $600 million cherry-picking scheme

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Farage v. Associated Ins. Mgt. Corp. , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05875 (Nov. 26, 2024) ( here ), the New York Court of Appeals examined the enforceability of an insurance contract’s two-year suit limitation period. In a 4-3 decision, written by Judge Madeline Singas, the Court held that the contract provision in the parties’ insurance agreement shortening the statute of limitations barred plaintiff from receiving payment for the restoration of her property t

“The doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents a party from denying her own expressed or implied admission which has in good faith been accepted and acted upon by another.” “The purpose of equitable estoppel is to preclude a person from asserting a right after having led another to form the reasonable belief that the right would not be asserted, and loss or prejudice to the other would result if the right were asserted.” Stated differently, the purpose of the doctrine “is to

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and implementing regulations promulgated by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) require that broker-dealers file a suspicious activity report (SAR”) with FinCEN to report a transaction (or a pattern of transactions of which the transaction is a part) conducted or attempted by, at, or through the broker-dealer involving or aggregating to at least $5,000 that the broker-dealer knows, su

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger As readers of this BLOG know, we frequently write about issues relating to mortgage foreclosure. [1] We have also written numerous articles relating to the recently enacted FAPA . See, e.g., [ here ], [ here ], [ here ], [ here ] and [ here ]. Today’s BLOG article relates to Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Farkas , and Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Dalal , cases decided by the Appellate Division, First Department, on November 21, 2024, and November 19,

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In litigation, parties often dispute the content and meaning of documents that form the basis of their dispute. Too many times a litigant will say that they “have a copy” of a document that is material and necessary to their claim or defense. But, the question is whether that document is the “best evidence” available. “The ‘oft-mentioned and much misunderstood’ best evidence rule simply requires the production of an original writing where its contents are

By: Jeffrey M. Haber One of the many changes that the Covid 19 pandemic brought to the workplace was remote employment for employees and consultants alike. When consultants from a different state perform services for a business or entity, questions arise, for dispute resolution purposes, about whether the court can exercise personal jurisdiction over them. In Applied Healthcare Research Mgt. v. Ibrahim , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05734 (4th Dept. Nov. 15, 2024) ( here ), the Appella

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger This BLOG has written frequently about the substance and scope of general releases. As noted in prior BLOG articles, in New York, “a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release.” Global Minerals & Metals Corp. v. Holme , 35 A.D.3d 93, 98 (1 st Dep’t 2006) (citation omitted). If “the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a ‘jural act’ binding on the parti

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Singh v. T-Mobile , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05554 (2d Dept. Nov. 13, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of an action for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. As discussed below, the Court did so on the basis of familiar principles of contract and quasi-contract law . In April 2018, plaintiff Cellray, Inc. (“Cellray”) entered into a

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On November 8, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) announced (here) that it settled charges against Invesco Advisers, Inc., which operates Invesco mutual funds and has approximately $746 billion in assets under management, for making misleading statements about the percentage of company-wide assets under management (“AUM”) that integrated environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) factors in investment decisions. Accord