All Posts

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article relates to renewal judgments under CPLR 5014 in the face of potentially defective service of process. This BLOG has previously addressed CPLR 5014 < here =">here</a>"> . Issues involving service of process have been addressed numerous times in this BLOG. See, e.g. , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here ="

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, also known as the “BSA,” enacted in 1970, established requirements for record-keeping and reporting by banks and other financial institutions. 1 The BSA is designed to, among other things, enable U.S. law enforcement and regulatory agencies to investigate potential criminal, tax, and regulatory violations (including money laundering and other financial crimes), by requiring individuals, banks, and oth

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber Under New York law, an action based upon fraud must be commenced within six years of the date the cause of action accrued, or within two years of the time the plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence, whichever is greater. The cause of action accrues when “every element of the claim, including injury, can truthfully be alleged”, “even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or inju

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, we have frequently written about how courts enforce contracts that are clear and unambiguous. In fact, many of our articles on this subject reflect this fundamental principle of contract interpretation in their title: “ The New York Court of Appeals Reminds Litigants That Words In Contracts Have Meaning ”; “ Contracts That Say What They Mean, Mean What They Say ” and “ Contracts That Say What They Mean, Mean What They Say Red

By Jonathan H. Freiberger On numerous occasions, this Blog has addressed issues related to RPAPL 1304 . Blog=">Blog" Tile="Tile</a>" Freiberger="Freiberger" Haber="Haber" LLP’s="LLP’s" website.="website."> By way of brief background as discussed in prior articles, 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: Jeffrey M. Haber Arbitration is an alternative form of dispute resolution where the parties voluntarily agree that a neutral person will resolve any legal disputes between them, instead of a judge or jury in a court of law. It is encouraged and recognized as the public policy of the State of New York. 1 Consequently, courts will interfere as little as possible with the agreement of consenting parties to submit their disputes to arbitration. 2 Since arbitration is a “cre

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In a prior post, we examined the impact of proofreading failures when drafting an agreement ( here ). In MAK Technology Holdings Inc. v. Anyvision Interactive Technologies Ltd. , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op 03376 (June 20, 2024) ( here ), the Court of Appeals examined a similar issue – whether typographical errors, grammatical mistakes, or other obvious errors render a contract ambiguous. In a 4-3 decision, written by Judge Cannataro, the Court held that grammatica

By Jonathan H. Freiberger In today’s BLOG we discuss AMK Capital Corp. v. Plotch . , a case decided on June 18, 2024, by the Appellate Division, First Department, that involves, inter alia , an interesting service of process issue. The Court in AMK Capital recognized that the appeal it was deciding is “an issue of apparent first impression – whether CPLR 308(2)’s restrictions prohibiting the inclusion of information indicating that a communication ‘is from an attorney or con

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Noto v. Planck, LLC , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 03340 (1st Dept. June 18, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department examined an at-will employee’s decision to refrain from leaving his employment with the company that employed him and whether that decision constituted consideration sufficient to support the formation of a contract. As discussed, the First Department held that such action sufficed. Noto arose from an alleged agreement whereby d