top of page
All Posts
Court Imposes Personal Liability on The Managing Member of An LLC Under the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine
As discussed in previous Blog posts, business owners and entrepreneurs wishing to insulate themselves from personal liability for the acts taken in the name of their business can generally do so by forming a corporation ( e.g. , C-Corp. or an S-Corp.) or limited liability company (“LLC”). Such protection, however, is not absolute; there are exceptions to the rule. For instance, a creditor or other third party can “pierce the corporate veil” – i.e. , go behind the corporate fo
admin
Jan 3, 20207 min read
The Privity or Near-Privity Doctrine: First Department Affirms Denial of Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim Involving Artwork
An interesting question sometimes arises in the tort arena in which a third-party to a transaction claims to have been injured by one of the parties. Do the parties to the transaction owe a duty to the third party? The answer depends on whether the third party can show privity or near privity with the alleged tortfeasor. In this regard, the third party must demonstrate that the parties were aware that their report, agreement or transaction documentation would be used by the t
admin
Dec 30, 201912 min read
Oral Agreements, Emails and The Motion to Dismiss Based on Documentary Evidence
Clients often ask if their oral agreement is enforceable. To support their claim, they point to emails and text messages as evidence of such an agreement. As this Blog has noted in the past, whether an oral agreement is enforceable and whether emails and text messages are sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate the existence of such an agreement are dependent upon whether the evidence is admissible and irrefutable. See , e.g. , here , here , and here . In today’s post,
admin
Dec 30, 20199 min read
Update: First Department Affirms Dismissal of Fraud Claim in Unique Goals International, Ltd. v. Finskiy
In November of 2018, this Blog wrote about Unique Goals International, Ltd. v. Finskiy ( here ), a case involving a fraud cause of action that was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the justifiable reliance element of the claim. On December 26, 2019, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the fraud claim. Unique Goals Intl., Ltd. v. Finskiy , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 09381 (1st Dept. Dec. 26, 2019) ( here ). Background Plainti
admin
Dec 27, 20194 min read
Second Department Affirms Order Denying Motion to Strike a Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness
From time to time, this Blog writes about procedural issues that arise during the course of a litigation. Today, we write about the note of issue and certificate of readiness. A note of issue is a form that is filed and served on all parties confirming that the case is ready for trial. CPLR § 3402(a). Although any party may file the note of issue after issue is joined, it is usually the plaintiff who files the form. In addition to the note of issue, the party making the fil
admin
Dec 26, 20194 min read
Mixed Purpose Insurance Reports Held Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege
Whether to permit discovery of insurance coverage decisions is often hotly contested. The issue typically arises in cases in which the carrier performs an investigation into the facts and circumstances of a potential or actual claim. The fruits of such an investigation can be very illuminating. For this reason, plaintiffs request the disclosure of all documents concerning such investigations. Defendants and insurers often resist producing these materials on privilege and work
admin
Dec 23, 20199 min read
The Race to Record a Mortgage is One You Do Not Want to Lose
Recording a mortgage puts the world on notice of the mortgagee’s interest in the real property that is the subject of the mortgage. “New York has a ‘race-notice’ recording statutory scheme whereby the mortgage recorded first by a mortgagee without notice of any other mortgages will maintain priority over such other mortgages.” Alliance Funding Co. v. Taboada , 39 A.D.3d 784 (2 nd Dept. 2007). Section 291 of New York’s Real Property Law , which governs the recording of co
admin
Dec 20, 20196 min read
Update: First Department Affirms the Denial of Summary Judgment in Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Tilton
In August of this year, this Blog wrote about Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Tilton , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32470(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 20, 2019) ( here ), a case involving several elements of a fraud claim. ( Here .) As we noted at the time, Norddeutsche was a good example of why the courts refrain from dismissing fraud claims – there are issues of fact that are best left to the trier-of-fact to decide. Shortly after this decision, Defendants appealed the mot
admin
Dec 18, 20195 min read
Enforcement News: SEC Brings Enforcement Proceedings Against Branding Company and its Former Senior Executives to Redress Accounting Fraud
A common fact pattern for accounting fraud involves a public company recognizing revenues before they are realized or realizable and earned. Senior executives who engage in such fraud often do so to meet or beat analysts’ revenue and earnings estimates. Case after case shows that the pressure to satisfy Wall Street (that is, meet or beat analysts’ estimates) is strong. When a public company and its senior executives issue materially false and misleading statements about the c
admin
Dec 16, 20195 min read
FISH TALES AND MECHANIC’S LIENS – WILLFUL EXAGERATION UNDER SECTIONS 39 AND 39-a OF NEW YORK’S LIEN LAW
This Blog, in “ The New York Court of Appeals Addresses the Issue of When a Mechanic’s Lien Can Be Placed on a Landlord’s Property By A Contractor Performing Work For A Tenant ,” quoting John P. Kane Co. v. Kinney , 12 Bedell 69 (1903), explained the purpose of a mechanic’s lien as follows: The object and purpose of mechanics’ lien law was to protect a person who, with the consent of the of the owner of real property, enhanced its value by furnishing materials or performing
admin
Dec 13, 20195 min read
Court Rules That Disclosure of Confidential Settlement Not Material and Necessary to Litigation
It is not uncommon for parties settling an action to negotiate a confidentiality provision that prohibits them from disclosing the terms of their agreement. While there may be reasons for requiring non-disclosure (a topic for another day), courts often grapple with the circumstances under which disclosure is warranted. In Appleyard v. Tigges , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 29373 (Sup. Ct., Bronx County Dec. 6, 2019) ( here ), the Court declined to order the disclosure of a confidential
admin
Dec 11, 20195 min read
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
Judgments from sister states are enforceable in New York (and other sister states as well) by virtue of the “Full Faith and Credit” clause (article IV, section 1) of the Unites States Constitution (the “Clause”), which provides: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and
admin
Dec 9, 20194 min read
Second Department Resolves Contract, Fiduciary Duty and Fraud Claims Involving Joint Ventures that Develop Real Property
In Benjamin v. Yeroushalmi , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 08647 (2d Dept. Dec. 4, 2019) ( here ), the Appellate Division, Second Department considered an appeal involving an action to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent inducement. The action involved the acquisition and development of real properly located in Mineola and Brooklyn, New York. Beginning in 2007, the plaintiffs, Jim Benjamin (“Jim”), a real estate developer and investor, and his
admin
Dec 6, 20197 min read
Fraud Shorts: Pleading Deficiencies, Duplication of Claims, Respondeat Superior and Apparent Authority
Decision day in the Appellate Division, First Department involved several cases in which the Court addressed allegations of fraud or fraudulent inducement. Many of the cases focused on the elements of the claim, while others focused on the absence of particularity and the duplication of claims doctrine. We look at some of those cases in today’s post. Lerner v. Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc. In Lerner v. Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc. , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 08611 (1st Dept. D
admin
Dec 4, 201910 min read
Do I really Have to Comply with the Subpoena? Yes!
It is not uncommon for a nonparty to a litigation to ask their attorney whether they must comply with a subpoena duly served upon them. As the court in Manswell v. Baptiste , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 29360 (Civ. Ct., Kings County, Nov. 20, 2019) ( here ), made clear, non-compliance is not an option. A subpoena is a document that commands a person to testify at a trial or deposition and/or to produce documents specifically demanded. A subpoena duces tecum differs from a subpoena ad
admin
Dec 2, 20195 min read
In Case of First Impression, New York Court of Appeals Holds that Bankruptcy Stay is a “Statutory Prohibition” Under CPLR 204(a) and That the Toll of CPLR 204(a) Applies to Actions Already Commenced
Statutes of limitations, which are a critical part of litigation, are designed to prevent litigants from sitting on their rights. A brief primer on New York’s Statute of Limitations, is contained within this Blog’s post, “ Second Department Finds No Issue of Fact as to Whether Defendant Should be Estopped From Asserting a Statute of Limitations Defense. ” Article 2 of New York’s CPLR addresses Statute of Limitations issues. The CPLR contains several provisions that toll or
admin
Nov 29, 20195 min read
Court Dismisses Fraudulent Inducement Claim in Merger Litigation
Allegations of fraudulent inducement come in many contexts. Today, this Blog looks at a fraudulent inducement claim in the context of a merger. Kainz v. Bernstein , No. 19 Civ. 2499 (LLS) (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 13, 2019) ( here ). As this Blog has noted, one of the more challenging elements of a fraudulent inducement cause of action for a plaintiff to satisfy is the justifiable reliance element. To satisfy this element, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she exercised the means of
admin
Nov 27, 20194 min read
Voiding a Contract on the Basis of Economic Duress
Economic duress, like duress, generally, provides an injured party with grounds to void a contract. Proof of the existence of economic duress requires a showing that one party to a contract has threatened to breach the agreement by withholding performance unless the other party agrees to some further demand. A party cannot be guilty of economic duress, however, for refusing to do that which it is not legally required to do or for threatening to do that which it is legally aut
admin
Nov 25, 20195 min read
bottom of page
