By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog frequently covers the pre-foreclosure notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 . 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 =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . While this stuff is interesting, it also happens to be the subject of frequen

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Laborers and material suppliers (collectively, “Providers”) that add value to construction projects should be paid for their work by the owner, general contractor or whoever else brought them to the project in the first instance. If Providers do not receive payment despite their own performance, several remedies are available. For example, a simple claim for breach of contract may be brought by an unpaid Provider. Such remedies, however, may be in

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is well-settled that the arbitration provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR § 7501 et seq .) evidence a legislative intent to encourage arbitration. 1 In fact, arbitration is a preferred means for the settlement of disputes between parties. 2 In light of the foregoing, (1) when parties to a contract have clearly and unambiguously agreed to arbitrate their disputes, the courts will enforce that agreement, as they would any other agreement

By: Jeffrey M. Haber A recurring question that courts and litigants often encounter is how to apply the continuing wrong doctrine to a statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations restrict the time within which a defendant can be held liability for all types of alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiffs who do not pursue their rights within the limitations period will find the courthouse doors closed to their claims. For this reason, whether the statute of limitations has run is an i

By Jonathan H. Freiberger I say it all the time and I’m going to say it again, the readers of this Blog know that we frequently discuss numerous aspects of residential mortgage litigation. S ee, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> and the articles linked therein. A related subtopic that gets much attention in this Blog is the pre-foreclosure notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 . See, e.g. , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> ,

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Yunjie Yang v. Knights Genesis Group , 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 32126(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 6, 2022) ( here ), the court was asked to consider various matters associated with the particularity requirement for pleading fraud. In this regard, by the court examined the group pleading doctrine and the specificity needed to maintain a fraud claim. The motion court was also asked to consider alter ego liability and the factual bases for piercing the corpo

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It has been more than two years since the start of the global pandemic. In the early days of the pandemic, many states imposed emergency measures to address the health crisis – measures that had the effect of reducing business operations or shutting down the business. New York was no different. Among the measures implemented were government-mandated closures. For retailers this meant the loss of business. With business shutdown, or substantially curtailed

By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog has written extensively on a variety of issues related to mortgage foreclosure, including those related specifically to limitations periods ( see, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . As to the limitations period relevant to mortgage foreclosure actions, we have previously written that: An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute

The question above was recently answered by Justice Francois A. Rivera in Reid v. Service , 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 32017(U) (Sup. Ct., Kings County June 9, 2022) ( here ). As discussed below, the alleged fact – a claimed misrepresentation – was only an allegation, refuted by the undisputed facts of the case. Reid involved the administration by defendant over the Estate of Edgar Reid, Sr. (the “Estate”). Defendant had been granted limited letters of administration by the Kings Cou