By: Jeffrey M. Haber In promoting a scam, fraud operators expect investors will jump at the opportunity to obtain a life-changing financial reward from their investment, especially if the investment opportunity does not require a large outlay of money. For this reason, many investment frauds involve false promises of extraordinary payouts with minimal risk. Unfortunately, too many investors are lulled into believing these promises and give their hard-earned money to these fra

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Obtaining jurisdiction over a person or corporation that is domiciled outside of the state can be difficult. A plaintiff must plead and prove that the person or entity purposefully used the resources of the state for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The failure to do so will result in dismissal of the action. Under CPLR § 302(a)(1), a court can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who “transacts any

By: Jeffrey M. Haber “Front-running” involves trading ahead of large, nonpublic orders of market participants to benefit from the market impact of those large orders. Large orders can have an impact on the price of a security when they cause an imbalance in the supply or demand for that security, thereby causing the price of that security to increase or decrease. Front-running was the focus of an enforcement action that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On December 23, 2022, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department issued two decisions involving New York’s former Debtor and Creditor Law (“DCL”): Inner Harbor Phase I L.P. v. Cor Inner Harbor Co. LLC , 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 07319 (4th Dept. Dec. 23, 2022) ( here ); and Hospitality Concepts, LLC v. Bernhardt , 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 07349 (4th Dept. Dec. 23, 2022) ( here ). We examine both decisions below. The former DCL was replaced on April 4, 2020 by the New Y

By Jonathan H. Freiberger As previously addressed in numerous articles on this Blog, the New York State Legislature has responded to the residential mortgage foreclosure crisis by promulgating a series of rules designed to protect homeowners. These rules place additional burdens on foreclosing lenders, and courts throughout New York State have demonstrated little sympathy for noncompliance. For example, we have written frequently about residential mortgage foreclosure pract

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In ABN AMRO Capital USA LLC v. AMERRA Capital Mgt. , LLC, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 07178 (1st Dept. Dec. 20, 2022) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department considered two defenses that are often advanced to dismiss a claim for fraudulent inducement: the absence of justifiable reliance and duplication with a breach of contract claim. We examine those defenses in today’s article. ABN AMRO involved the extension of $360 million in loans to Transmar Comm

As readers of this Blog know, we have often written about the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim. Considered by the courts to be nettlesome, justifiable reliance is often the most difficult element for plaintiffs to satisfy.

By Jonathan H. Freiberger If you are too busy to play along after reading the title of today’s article, it is my pleasure to help you out. FIRST -- CPLR 304 , which explains how to commence an action or special proceeding, provides at subparagraph (a): An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice in accordance with rule twenty-one hundred two of this chapter. A special proceeding is commenced by filing a petition in accordance with rule t

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In commercial and business litigation, it is common for plaintiffs to assert claims against a business entity for wrongs committed by the entity. Often, plaintiffs will try to “pierce the corporate veil,” or get behind the corporate form, to hold the entity’s officers or members liable for the alleged wrongdoing. Since a plaintiff must show that an officer or member used his/her control over the entity to commit a fraud or other wrong against the plaintif