Today’s article is about MCLP Asset Co. v. Zaveri, an action that involves numerous areas of the law about which we frequently write -- mortgage foreclosure, FAPA, CPLR 205(a), CPLR 205-A and statutes of limitation.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On November 18, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) announced that, on October 16, 2025, it charged Joshua Wander (“Defendant A”), Steven Pasko (“Defendant B”), and two companies that they founded, co-managed, and controlled—777 Partners LLC and 600 Partners LLC—with defrauding investors while raising approximately $237 million. The Commission also charged Damien Alfalla (“Defendant C”), the companies’ former Chief Financi

In today’s article, we explore New York’s heightened pleading standard for defamation per se and defamation by implication.

On October 31, 2025, the Supreme Court, Kings County, decided loanDepot.com LLC v. Ortner, a case addressing the meaning of the “taking proceedings” requirement of CPLR 3215(c).

In Sire Spirits, LLC v. Beam Suntory, Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06297 (1st Dept. Nov. 18, 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of a motion to amend a complaint seeking damages for “diminution of enterprise value” due to the alleged fraud.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Allen v. Fidelity Brokerage Servs. LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 34169(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 30, 2025), plaintiff, the representative of her son’s estate, sought to vacate a FINRA arbitration award after claims alleging negligent oversight of speculative options trading were denied. The arbitration panel imposed $25,000 in sanctions for violating FINRA Rule 12209 by filing a parallel court action. Plaintiff argued the panel exceeded its authority

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 default judgment.

In today’s article, we examine Hofman v. Braun, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 34102(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 24, 2025), a case addressing the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim and the continuous wrong doctrine.

Obtaining personal jurisdiction[1] over a defendant is a critical aspect of litigation.

In today’s article, we explore principles of contract interpretation and judicial dissolution of partnerships under New York law. As we discuss, courts interpret contracts based on the written intent of the parties and only consider extrinsic evidence when ambiguity exists.

New York’s adoption of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act in 2019 modernized its Debtor and Creditor Law. The revised law allows creditors to void both actual and constructive fraudulent transfers. Constructive fraud focuses on inadequate value and insolvency, while actual fraud hinges on intent, assessed via “badges of fraud.”

In today’s article, we examine Harris v. Dream Volunteers, a case in which the court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of contract interpretation: contracts that are clear and unambiguous must be enforced according to their plain terms.

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 “[o]n application by or for a member” of the company.

In 1995 Cam LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC, the Court of Appeals held that a “good guy” guarantor’s liability under a commercial lease ends when the tenant vacates and surrenders possession, not when the landlord accepts the surrender.

In Kellinger v. Fox Media LLC, 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 held that his email constituted a binding acceptance of the settlement.

As readers of this Blog know, a “cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation requires a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury.”

Givens addresses three issues encountered in mortgage foreclosure actions:[1] motions for extensions of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, the 90-day requirement to conduct foreclosure sales pursuant to RPAPL 1351(1), and the tolling of interest due to a lender’s delays in prosecuting its foreclosure action.

In Simpson v. Chassen, the New York Supreme Court compelled the production of a joint defense agreement, rejecting claims that it was protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.