top of page
All Posts
THE APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, REITERATES THE IMPORTANCE OF PROMPTLY CHECKING YOUR BANK STATEMENTS
Unscrupulous bookkeepers or other employees have great potential to embezzle money using forged or other types of bogus checks. In such instances, Article 4 of New York’s Uniform Commercial Code (“Bank Deposits and Collections”) is implicated. “Articles 3 and 4 of the UCC envisions a series of shifting burdens of risk with respect to forged checks.” Putnam Rolling Ladder Co. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. , 74 N.Y.2d 340, 345 (1989). Under Article 3 of the UCC, a chec
admin
Sep 4, 20194 min read
Sometimes Arbitration is Not the Most Efficient Method of Dispute Resolution: TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP v. WN Partner LLC
The title of this post captures the recent observation of Justice Joel M. Cohen of the Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division. In , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32487(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 22, 2019) (here), Justice Cohen stated the following: “In many cases, arbitration is a quick and efficient way to resolve disputes with little or no court involvement. This is not one of those cases.” Slip Op. at *1, citing , 559 U.S. 662 (2010). Arbitration is an alternative f
admin
Sep 2, 201915 min read
Does Profitability Matter in the Context of Judicial Dissolution Under BCL § 1104?
New York’s Business Corporation Law (“BCL”) provides shareholders owning 50% or more of a corporation two paths to judicial dissolution: a) BCL § 1104 – deadlock at the board or shareholder level such that the corporation “cannot continue to function effectively, and no alternative exists but dissolution”; or b) BCL § 1104-a – where directors or those in control of the corporation have been guilty of illegal, fraudulent or oppressive actions toward the complaining shareholder
admin
Aug 29, 20198 min read
Statute of Limitations, Justifiable Reliance, and Loss Causation: Court Denies Summary Dismissal of Fraud Action Due to Material Issues Fact
As readers of this Blog know, pleading and proving fraud is not easy. The law reporters (not to mention the pages of this Blog) are brimming with cases in which the courts have dismissed fraud actions due to pleading and proof deficiencies. Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Tilton , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32470(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 20, 2019) ( here ), is a recent example of this phenomenon. In Norddeutsche , Plaintiffs contended that they were defrauded into inves
admin
Aug 27, 201910 min read
When Traveling, Always Read the Back of the Ticket
It is the end of summer. With Labor Day around the corner, people will be taking vacations or visiting family. Many will be traveling by airplane, train or cruise ship. To do so, they will need a ticket. Many travelers do not realize that their ticket is an important legal document. It not only allows the person to board the means of transportation, but often includes limitations and restrictions, affecting such matters as the forum for dispute resolution, choice of law, and
admin
Aug 26, 20194 min read
Change of Venue Procedures
The location of the place of trial ( or venue) of a legal proceeding in New York State is the location where the action is brought. The plaintiff, as the party bringing the proceeding, generally gets to choose, in the first instance, venue. Plaintiffs, however, do not always choose a proper venue (“Improper Venue Selection”). In such instances, a defendant has an opportunity to change the Improper Venue Selection to a proper one. See CPLR 510 (1) . Other times, although
admin
Aug 23, 20196 min read
Court Rules That The Public’s Right To Know Outweighs A Litigant’s Desire to Seal the Pleadings
There is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records. Mosallem v. Berenson , 76 A.D.3d 345, 348 (1st Dept. 2010); Mancheski v. Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners , 39 A.D.3d 499, 501 (2d Dept. 2007); Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v. APP Intl. Fin. Co., B.V. , 28 A.D.3d 322, 324 (1st Dept. 2006); Danco Labs. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter , 274 A.D.2d 1, 6 (1st Dept. 2000). New York has “long recognized that civil actions and proc
admin
Aug 21, 20195 min read
Court Explains When A Continuing Wrong is a Continuing Wrong
Statutes of limitations are statutory mechanisms that limit the duration of a defendant’s liability for all types of alleged wrongdoing. Depending upon the circumstances, the statute of limitations can be an important topic of discussion between lawyer and client. As many practitioners know, there are exceptions to the general rule that the statute of limitations runs from the time of the tort or breach though no damage occurs until a later time. One exception that practition
admin
Aug 19, 20195 min read
Court Approves Settlement of Qui Tam Action Under New York’s False Claims Act Over the Objection of the Whistleblower
It has been some time since this Blog has written an article about whistleblowers and qui tam actions. Those articles typically involved lawsuits arising under the Federal False Claims Act (“Federal False Claims Act”). In today’s post, this Blog looks at City of New York v. Siemens Elec., LLC , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 29251 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 7, 2019) ( here ), a qui tam action brought under the New York False Claims Act (“NYFCA”) ( here ) against, among others, Siemens
admin
Aug 16, 201912 min read
Alleged Fraud, Undue Influence and Financial Exploitation Withstand Motion to Dismiss an Action Brought by the Charity of a Radio Pioneer
On July 15, 2019, New York Surrogate Nora Anderson denied, in part, a motion to dismiss the petition filed by Radio Drama Network, Inc. (“Radio Drama” or “Petitioner”), in which Radio Drama sought to invalidate testamentary instruments that deprived it of a $100 million bequest from Himan Brown (“Brown”), the creator of “Dick Tracy” and “Inner Sanctum Mysteries,” and founder of the Himan Brown Revocable Trust (the “Revocable Trust”). Radio Drama Network, Inc. v. Kay , File No
admin
Aug 14, 201910 min read
Court Finds Documentary Evidence Utterly Refutes Tenant’s Claim For Damages
In New York, Section 3211(a) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) provides the primary mechanism by which a party can make a motion, before a responsive pleading, to dismiss one or more causes of action alleged against that party. A “cause of action” subject to dismissal under CPLR § 3211(a), includes counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims. There are several grounds under CPLR § 3211(a) on which a party may move to dismiss. These include (but are not lim
admin
Aug 12, 20195 min read
State Court Applies PSLRA Automatic Stay To 1933 Act Class Action Creating A Split Within the Commercial Division
On August 6, 2017, Justice Andrew Borrok of the Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division, decided In re Everquote, Inc. Securities Litigation , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 29242 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 6, 2019) ( here ), in which he held that the automatic stay of discovery required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act” or “PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(b)(1), applies in state court as well as in federal court. In doing so, Justice Borro
admin
Aug 9, 20198 min read
First Department Affirms Dismissal of Two Actions on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds
Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine in which a court may dismiss an action where another forum would be better suited to adjudicate the matter. In New York, the doctrine is codified in CPLR §327(a). Under this section, a court may stay or dismiss an action if it finds “that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum.” CPLR § 327(a). The party seeking dismissal bears a heavy burden of establishing that New York is not the pro
admin
Aug 7, 20199 min read
Breach of Contract and Broken Cookies with Fraud and Fiduciary Duty Sprinkles
There is almost nothing more frustrating, or potentially costlier, to a business than a dispute over the meaning of a contract. Such disputes can take many forms. It may be that the language used is ambiguous; or the language is reasonably clear but is susceptible to different meanings; or although the language is clear, taken literally, it might not reflect the parties’ intent; or, as is often the case, an event has occurred that was not contemplated by the parties at the ti
admin
Aug 5, 201911 min read
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Addresses The Distinction Between An Insurer’s Duty To Defend And Its Duty To Indemnify
Insurance policies typically provide that the insurer will “defend” its insured in the event of a lawsuit and “indemnify” its insured against liability resulting therefrom. The insurer’s duty to defend, however, is broader than its duty to indemnify. Seaboard Surety Co. v. Gillette Co. , 64 N.Y.2d 304 (1984). Simply stated, an insurer may be obligated to provide a defense to a lawsuit even though it may be relieved of the obligation to indemnify its insured from any judgme
admin
Aug 2, 20194 min read
Court Dismisses Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim That Should Have Been Brought Derivatively
Distinguishing between direct and derivative claims is not easy. Sometimes, the difficulty arises because of the entity involved. For example, in the LLC context, there are fiduciary relationships ( e.g. , managing member and non-managing member) that will support a direct action in circumstances that might otherwise require a derivative action. E.g. , Pokoik v. Pokoik , 115 A.D.3d 428 (1st Dept. 2014); Salm v. Feldstein , 20 A.D.3d 469, 470 (2d Dept. 2005). Other times, the
admin
Jul 31, 20197 min read
Enforcement News: Facebook’s Tough Week – Over $5 Billion Paid to Settle Claims Brought by The SEC and FTC
Last week was a rough one for Facebook, Inc. (FB-NASDAQ). On July 24, 2019, the social network giant, agreed to pay a $100 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) ( here ) to settle claims related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and a $5 billion penalty to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to settle claims concerning misleading disclosures related to the company’s privacy practices ( here ). The settlements are the culmination of investigations by
admin
Jul 29, 20198 min read
Fraudulent Concealment and the Failure to Allege a Duty to Disclose
On July 18, 2019, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division, decided Shyer v. Shyer , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32138(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 18, 2019) ( here ), a third-party action involving allegations of fraudulent concealment relating to the failure to disclose material information about the deteriorating health of a company executive for the purpose of securing about $150,000 in annual benefits. The company, Zyloware Corp. (“Zylowa
admin
Jul 25, 201910 min read
bottom of page
