All Posts

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger In today’s BLOG we will discuss Tri-Rail Designers & Builders, Inc. v. Concrete Superstructures, Inc. , a case decided on November 12, 2025, by the Appellate Division, Second Department. In Tri-Rail , the Court decided a “question which has not been directly addressed” in the Second Department involving the impact of non-compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (f/k/a the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act) (the “Act”) on obtaining a

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we examine Hofman v. Braun , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 34102(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 24, 2025) ( here ), a case addressing the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim and the continuous wrong doctrine. In Hofman , plaintiffs alleged that defendant, Seymour Braun, their attorney, initially represented them in forming limited liability companies and negotiating a loan, then engaged in actions adverse to their intere

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger William Cowper, in his Eighteenth-Century poem “The Task,” coined the phrase “Variety’s the very spice of life.” Today, this phrase is used in many contexts; albeit not so frequently when discussing service of process under CPLR 308(4) – the subject of today’s BLOG. In our recent BLOG article: “ Primer – Personal Jurisdiction and Service of Process ” we explored various process service issues. As discussed therein, obtaining personal jurisdiction

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Today, we examine familiar principles of contract interpretation, as well as the requirements for judicial dissolution of a partnership.  The Rules of Contract Interpretation It is well-settled in New York that the “‘fundamental, neutral precept of contract interpretation is that agreements are construed in accord with the parties’ intent<,> ’ and ‘ he best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing.’” “‘The

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In 2019, New York enacted the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, which repealed and replaced certain provisions of the Debtor and Creditor Law (“DCL”) relating to fraudulent conveyances, which became effective April 4, 2020. Transfers made after April 4, 2020 are governed by the current version of the DCL. The DCL, as amended, permits creditors to void actual and constructive fraudulent transfers. A creditor may void a debtor’s constructive fraudulent t

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, when interpreting a contract, the words of the writing must be accorded their fair and reasonable meaning, aiming for a practical interpretation that realizes the reasonable expectations of the parties. The court is required to enforce a written agreement according to the plain meaning of its terms when it is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face.  Although the parties may offer conflicting interpretations of their contract, that do

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber Under New York’s Limited Liability Company Law (“LLCL”) § 702 , a court “may decree dissolution of a limited liability company whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the articles of organization or operating agreement.” The claim must be brought “ n application by or for a member” of the company. In Matter of Bodenchak v. 5178 Holdings LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05875 (1st Dept. Oct. 23, 2025) ( here ), the Ap

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses 1995 Cam LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC , a case decided on October 21, 2025, by the New York Court of Appeals. In 1995 Cam , the Court held that the guaranty executed by guarantor was a “good guy” guaranty and, therefore, liability under the subject commercial lease ended with the tenant’s surrender of possession of the premises and not with the landlord’s acceptance of the surrender. By way of background, a “good guy” gua

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Kellinger v. Fox Media LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 33835(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 8, 2025) ( here ), the New York Supreme Court granted a motion brought by defendants to enforce a $15,000 settlement agreement with plaintiff. The motion court found that plaintiff had confirmed the settlement by email, satisfying CPLR 2104’s requirement for a written agreement. Although plaintiff later claimed he only agreed to review the documents, the motion court