In Rubin v. Hodes, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of fraud and loan repayment claims brought by a former majority shareholder of a healthcare company. However, the courts never reached the merits of those claims because the plaintiff failed to disclose his stock interests and promissory notes in a prior bankruptcy proceeding.

Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation-Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”)[1], which, inter alia, “allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are “‘united in interest.’”

Under New York law, alter ego liability, often referred to as piercing the corporate veil, is a doctrine that permits a court to disregard the corporate form and hold an individual officer, director, or owner liable where that person exercised domination and control over the entity and used that domination and control to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the plaintiff.

Merger clauses and the duplication of claims doctrine often operate to limit the availability of fraudulent inducement claims alongside breach of contract claims.

When a court issues a decision and order that is self-effectuating, nothing further from the parties is required. Sometimes, however, a court’s decision will direct that the prevailing party either: (a) submit an order or judgment for the court to consider; or, (b) submit or settle an order or judgment, on notice, for the court’s consideration.

Contract interpretation principles require courts to give effect to the parties’ intent as expressed in the plain language of their agreement, while reading the contract as a whole and avoiding constructions that render provisions meaningless.

In today’s article, we examine Kingdom Assoc., Inc. v. WBC Servs. Inc., 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03070 (1st Dept. May 14, 2026), a case arising from a proposed subcontract for excavation and foundation work on a New York City project.

CPLR 3215(c) mandates dismissal of a complaint as abandoned if a plaintiff fails to take proceedings for a default judgment within one year of a defendant’s default, unless “sufficient cause” (a reasonable excuse and potentially meritorious claim) is shown. Recent cases clarify what qualifies as “taking proceedings.”

New York’s Limited Liability Company Law § 607 limits the remedies available to a creditor when the judgment debtor is an LLC member, confining recovery to the member’s economic interest and prohibiting any direct interference with LLC property. As demonstrated in Finance Holding Co., LLC v. Farzam, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 31868(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Apr. 7, 2026), courts use the statute to protect the separation between the LLC and its members.

Affinity fraud is a form of financial fraud that relies on social connections and trust. It most often occurs within identifiable groups, such as religious, cultural, or ethnic communities, or social organizations, where members share common values, experiences, or identities. Rather than approaching targets as strangers, those promoting the scheme position themselves as insiders, using familiarity and perceived credibility to create comfort and reduce skepticism.

Mechanics’ liens are powerful tools available to, inter alia, contractors, laborers and materialmen when they are not paid for their work in improving real property.

In Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. TPG Capital Mgt., L.P., 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 02775 (1st Dept. May 5, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, examined the limits of fraud claims arising from complex private‑equity financing transactions.

Conclusory allegations, even when bolstered by informal communications, such as text messages, will not substitute for well-pleaded facts showing materially misleading conduct or a specific misrepresentation.

CPLR 322(a) permits a defendant in an action affecting title to real property to demand proof that the plaintiff’s counsel was authorized to commence the action.

Letters of credit are designed to reduce risk in international trade by reallocating who bears the risk of nonpayment, and when. Instead of relying solely on a buyer’s willingness or ability to pay, the seller relies on the issuing bank’s independent obligation.

Contracts are intended to bring certainty and clarity to commercial relationships, yet disputes often arise when written terms leave room for more than one reasonable interpretation. Under New York law, the question of ambiguity can determine whether a case is resolved on the face of the agreement or proceeds into litigation over extrinsic evidence and party intent.

RPAPL 1304 requires that at least ninety days before commencing legal action against a borrower with respect to a “home loan” (as defined in the relevant statutes), a lender must: send written notice to the borrower by certified and regular mail that the loan is in default; provide a list of approved housing agencies that offer free or low-cost counseling; and, advise that legal action may be commenced after ninety days if no action is taken to resolve the matter.

Under New York law, fraud claims are not duplicative of breach of contract claims when they are based on misrepresentations of present fact collateral to the contract, even if they seek the same damages. Applying that rule, the Appellate Division, First Department held in Metropolitan Partners Group Admin., LLC v. Nerney, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 02340 (1st Dept. Apr. 16, 2026), that plaintiff adequately pleaded both fraud and breach of contract claims ...