By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Because litigation can be a long and drawn-out process, it is not uncommon for litigants to die during the pendency of a lawsuit. In today’s BLOG article, we address the problems that may arise when a litigant dies. This BLOG has previously addressed this issue. See, e.g ., < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . As previously noted in prior BLOG articles, in this context CPLR § 1015 – Substitution Upon Death – is instructive and provides:

By: Jeffrey M. Haber “Spoofing is a type of scam in which criminals attempt to obtain someone’s personal information by pretending to be a legitimate business, a neighbor, or some other innocent party.” Spoofing can occur in any form of online communication, including emails, text messages, telephone calls, and websites. Id. Although spoofing comes in many forms, the goal of spoofing is the same: to deceive people into divulging personal and/or financial information that the

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving claims of fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment. In Board of Mgrs. of 570 Broome Condominium v. Soho Broome Condos LLC , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 04804 (1st Dept. Oct. 3, 2024) ( here ), the Court examined a fraudulent inducement claim in connection with the purchase of a condominium unit. As discussed below, the Court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendant asserted affirmative

Today’s BLOG article relates to fraudulent concealment, caveat emptor and justifiable reliance when purchasing real property.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Kapitus Servicing, Inc. v. MS Health, Inc. , 221 A.D.3d 504, 505 (1st Dept. Nov. 21, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed the issue of whether a foreign limited liability company had the capacity to sue in New York due to defects in the entity’s corporate filings. In answering the question, the Court looked at the parties involved and who was the real party in interest with regard to the allegations asserted in the action

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Rabinowitz v. Clarke , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 04627 ( st Dept. Sept. 26, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed legal principles and causes of action that are familiar to readers of this Blog: fraud, the particularity requirement of CPLR 3016(b), the statute of limitations applicable to fraud claims, breach of contract and the duplication doctrine. We examine Rabinowitz below. Rabinowitz arose from plaintiff providing defenda

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Partition is “the act or proceeding by which co-owners of property cause it to be divided into as many shares as there are owners, according to their interests therein, or if that cannot be equitably done, to be sold for the best obtainable price and the proceeds distributed according to the respective interests.” Chiang v. Chang , 137 A.D.2d 371, 373 (1 st Dep’t 1988) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Partition actions are governed

By: Jeffrey M. Haber During the Covid pandemic, conducting discovery, especially the taking of depositions, was challenging. Parties and their counsel had to adapt to the global health crisis. One adaptation was to remotely take depositions. As the courts opened and a new normalcy came into being, many parties and attorneys nevertheless continued to avail themselves of the remote deposition. In the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the option

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As a general matter, “ cross trade is a practice where buy and sell orders for the same asset are offset without recording the trade on the exchange.” An adviser that arranges for a security to be purchased from or sold to a client from its own account (which can include an affiliate of the advisor) – as opposed to purchasing or selling the security in the secondary markets – is engaging in a “principal trade.” An “agency cross trade” occurs when an advis

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger This BLOG has frequently addressed issues related to a party’s standing, in many different contexts, to commence litigation. In prior BLOG articles we have explained that in order to prosecute a lawsuit, the plaintiff must have standing to do so. Thus, we have noted that“ tanding involves a determination of whether the party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to cast the dispute in a form traditionally capable o

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Murray v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 51257(U) (Sup. Ct. Monroe County Sept. 12, 2024) ( here ), the court was asked to consider the viability of claims for violations of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of contract, and breach of the warranty of merchantability. As discussed below, the motion court held that plaintiff failed to satisfy the elements of the claims asserted. In particular, the motion court held that plaintiff

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Discovery (or disclosure) in litigation, which is governed in New York State practice by Article 31 of the CPLR , is the mechanism by which litigants obtain facts and information from other parties and non-parties to support their claims and/or defenses and otherwise prepare for trial. This BLOG has previously addressed discovery issues. See, e.g. , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">

By: Jeffrey M. Haber “Ensuring that potential whistleblowers can communicate directly with the Commission is a critical part of the SEC’s oversight mandate” On numerous occasions, we have written about the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC” or the “Commission”) whistleblower program and, in particular, the success of the program with respect to detecting and preventing violations of the federal securities laws. The success of the program depends, in large part, on th

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Seitz v. Marcum LLP , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 51141(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 30, 2024) ( here ), Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division addressed the doctrine of in pari delicto , which “bars a party that has been injured as a result of its own intentional wrongdoing from recovering for those injuries from another party whose equal or lesser fault contributed to the loss.” The doctrine is available to a defendant as an aff

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Hydraulic IP Holdings, LLC v. Tan , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 32930(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 16, 2024 ( here ), the court was asked to hold certain successor entities liable for the unsatisfied judgment (“Judgment”) issued by the motion court in plaintiff’s favor and against non-party Grace Apparel LLC (“Grace”). As discussed below, the motion court declined to grant summary judgment in either party’s favor, holding there were issues of fact as to whe

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Often, in the pre-action investigation of a client’s claims, it becomes evident that discovery would materially aid the client in framing his/her complaint or in learning the identities of the persons against whom the complaint should be brought. Obtaining pre-action discovery from the court, however, is not easy. As discussed below, the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action against the proposed defendant and the materi

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In DirecTV, LLC v. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 04225 (1st Dept. Aug. 15, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department considered the viability of a fraudulent inducement claim and whether the plaintiff satisfied the elements of the claim. As discussed below, the Court held that the motion court “should have granted summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor on” this claim. DirecTV arose out of a retransmission consent agreement

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Sometimes this BLOG takes an in-depth look at recently decided cases from New York’s appellate courts; other times it simply reports on cases with an interesting holding. Today’s BLOG reflects the latter. Bank of New York Mellon v. Levinson , is a mortgage foreclosure action decided by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on August 14, 2024. The defendant/borrower in Bank of New York , borrowed $1.2 million from the lender and secured his repa