top of page
All Posts
Supreme Court, Kings County, Denies Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Evidentiary Failures
By Jonathan H. Freiberger As explained in prior Blog articles, a court will grant a motion for summary judgment if, upon all the papers and evidence submitted, the cause of action or defense is established sufficiently to warrant directing judgment in favor of the moving party as a matter of law. CPLR § 3212 (b); Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co. , 70 N.Y.2d 966, 967 (1988); Zuckerman v. City of New York , 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 (1980). The function of the court when presen
admin
Apr 14, 20236 min read
Court Finds No Basis to Infer that Attorney Had Authority to Represent Party in An Action
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we address the question: When is an attorney authorized to act on behalf of a party? As one would expect, when the client says so, a lesson learned by the parties in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v. Koukis , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 01863 (1st Dept. Apr. 11, 2023) ( here ). The primary issue in Gibson Dunn was whether the default judgment entered against defendant George Koukis in July 2019 should be vacated, and the complaint dismissed as ag
admin
Apr 12, 20234 min read
The Doctrine of Unconscionability and Fraudulent Inducement
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Norman Realty & Constr. Corp. v. 151 E. 170th Lender LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 01843 (1st Dept. April 6, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed the affirmative defense of contract unconscionability, a topic that this Blog has not addressed in quite some time (here). 1 It also addressed plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. As discussed below, Norman Realty involved an action for unconscionabi
admin
Apr 10, 202312 min read
The Pitfalls of the Informal Appearances and the Benefit of the Corporate Veil
By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog has previously discussed informal appearances in an article aptly titled: “ Informal Appearances ,” from which the introductory information related to informal appearances is taken. Informal Appearances It makes sense that a “plaintiff appears in an action merely by bringing it.” Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Hall , 185 N.Y.S.3d 1006, 1007 (2 nd Dep’t 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Once served with process, a de
admin
Apr 7, 20236 min read
Fraud and the Ice Cream Franchise
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we examine South Shore D’Lites LLC v. First Class Prods. Grp., LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 01769 (1st Dept. Apr. 4, 2023) ( here ), a case involving the special facts doctrine in the context of a fraud claim, in particular, the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim. South Shore D’Lites concerned licenses to sell ice cream. The licenses were sold to plaintiffs, South Shore D’Lites, LLC, D’Lites of West Caldwell, LLC, and HGB D’Li
admin
Apr 5, 20234 min read
Enforcement News: The Pressure To Meet Analysts’ Expectations
Market analysts study publicly traded companies and make recommendations on the securities of those companies.1 Most analysts specialize in a particular industry or sector of the economy.2 As noted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), analysts exert considerable influence on a company. “Analysts’ recommendations or reports can influence the price of a company’s stock—especially when the recommendations are widely disseminated through television a
admin
Apr 3, 20234 min read
RPAPL 1351(1) Requires a Foreclosure Sale to Occur Within Ninety Days of the Date of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale
By Jonathan H. Freiberger While this Blog has addressed numerous issues relating to residential mortgage foreclosure, it has never touched upon the requirement in RPAPL 1351 (1) that a judgment of foreclosure and sale “shall direct that the mortgaged premises, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to discharge the mortgage debt, the expenses of the sale and the costs of the action, and which may be sold separately without material injury to the parties interested, be sold b
admin
Mar 31, 20234 min read
Deletion of Electronic Data: Is it Trespass to Chattels or Conversion?
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In NW Media Holdings Corp. v. IBT Media Inc. , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30875(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Mar. 22, 2023) ( here ), Justice Melissa A. Crane addressed the question whether the destruction of millions of pages of data on a Google Workspace (“Workspace”) states a claim for trespass to chattels or conversion. As discussed below, Justice Crane concluded that the allegations concerning the destruction of such data sufficed to state a claim for conversio
admin
Mar 29, 20237 min read
First Department Sustains Undue Influence and Unjust Enrichment Claims in Financial Exploitation Case
By: Jeffrey M. Haber As we have noted previously, the financial exploitation of seniors is a significant problem ( e.g. , here , here , here , here , and here ). As the incidence of financial exploitation and abuse increases, so do the costs to its victims. An oft-cited study by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, and the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, titled “Brok
admin
Mar 27, 20237 min read
Be Careful When Purchasing Interests in Structured Settlement Payments
By Jonathan H. Freiberger Structured settlement annuities are frequently used by courts and litigants to provide a stream of payments to, inter alia , injured parties and/or their families in personal injury and/or wrongful death cases. Due to abuse at the hands of unscrupulous factoring companies, the New York Legislature, in 2002, enacted the Structured Settlement Protection Act (”SSPA”). As the court in In the Matter of Petition of 321 Henderson Receivables Origination
admin
Mar 24, 20234 min read
Enforcement News: Cannabis Company Charged with Perpetrating a Long-Running Scheme to Defraud
By: Jeffrey M. Haber “Legal cannabis is an emerging industry, which makes it prime hunting ground for financial predators who will use every trick in the book to lure investors into their schemes,” said Cari Fais, acting director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (here). The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) recognized this problem in 2014, when it issued an investor alert about investing in cannabis companies (here), and in 2018, whe
admin
Mar 20, 20234 min read
WhatsApp With Your Spoliation of Important Cell Phone Information
By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog has frequently addressed the interplay between document discovery in litigation and the repercussions resulting from the spoliation of evidence. [ See, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> .] “Spoliation” refers to evidence that is “destroyed” “substantially altered” or “lost”. See, e.g., Gilliam v. Uni Holdings , 201 A.D.3d 83, 86 (1 st Dep’t 2021); D
admin
Mar 17, 20233 min read
Fraud Notes: First Department Talks About Misrepresentations of Fact and Justifiable Reliance
By: Jeffrey M. Haber To establish a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must plead a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance and damages. 1 In Pope Investments II LLC v. Belmont Partners, LLC , Case No. 2022-02632 (1st Dept. Mar. 14, 2023) ( here ), and RCM/CMG Portfolio Holding, LLC v. Giordano , Case No. 2021-03254 (1st Dept. Mar. 14, 2020) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addre
admin
Mar 15, 20238 min read
Breaking Up is Hard to Do 2.0: Court Denies Motion to Dissolve Under BCL 1104-a
By: Jeffrey M. Haber Section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law (“BCL”) grants a court the power to order the dissolution of a corporation “when the holders of shares representing one-half of the votes of all outstanding shares of a corporation entitled to vote in an election of directors,” 1 establish that “the directors are so divided respecting the management of the corporation’s affairs that the votes required for action by the board cannot be obtained”, 2 or that “th
admin
Mar 13, 202312 min read
Under One Silo: Fraudulent Inducement, Fraudulent Conveyance and Violation of GBL § 349
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Standlee Premium Prods, LLC v. WGST, Inc. , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30625(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Mar. 2, 2023) ( here ), the court addressed three topics that we often write about: fraudulent inducement, fraudulent conveyance and GBL § 349. As to the former, the issue before the court was whether defendants made a material misstatement of present fact – i.e. , whether defendants misrepresented their present intention to perform under the agreements know
admin
Mar 10, 20238 min read
Champerty and Fraud . . . What a Combination!
By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is not often that we examine a case involving a cause of action for champerty. The last time we did so was on April 23, 2021 ( here ). We also examined the champerty doctrine in 2020 ( here ) and 2016 ( here ). But what is champerty? Simply, champerty is the prohibited practice of purchasing claims for the purpose of commencing litigation. New York’s prohibition against champertous transactions is codified in Section 489 of the Judiciary Law, which pr
admin
Mar 8, 202310 min read
Enforcement News: Unregistered Broker-Dealer Activity Relating to Pre-IPO Funds
By: Jeffrey M. Haber The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) governs the way in which the securities markets and its brokers and dealers operate. Under the Exchange Act, most “brokers” and “dealers” must register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) and join a “self-regulatory organization,” or SRO. Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78o(a). Under Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78c(a)(4)(A), a b
admin
Mar 6, 20234 min read
Publicly Available Information Negates Fraudulent Concealment Claim
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In 228 W. 72 LLC v. 228A W. 72 LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 01057 (1st Dept. Feb. 28, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department dismissed a fraudulent inducement claim because the facts allegedly concealed were publicly available. We examine 228 W. 72 LLC below. 228 W. 72 involved the purchase of real property (the “Premises”) by Plaintiff, 228 W. 72 LLC (“Plaintiff”), from Defendant, 228A W. 72 LLC (“Defendant”). Among other things, the con
admin
Mar 1, 20235 min read
bottom of page
