top of page
All Posts
Fraud Notes: Fraudulent Inducement With Duplication on Top
By: Jeffrey M. Haber Yesterday, the Appellate Division, First Department decided three cases involving claims for fraudulent inducement. We examine each of these cases below. Artemus USA LLC v. Leila Taghinia-Milani Inc. Artemus involved artwork that was consigned by Artemus USA LLC (“Artemus”) to defendants pursuant to a consignment agreement (“Agreement”). Plaintiffs alleged that the artwork was damaged while consigned to the Defendants. In their opposition to plaintiffs
admin
Jan 12, 20226 min read
Update: Broad Releases and The Duplication Doctrine
By: Jeffrey M. Haber Last April, this Blog wrote about Sodhi v. IAC/InterActiveCorp , 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 31220(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Apr. 8, 2021) ( here ), an action to recover money claimed to be improperly withheld by IAC/Interacticecorp (“IAC”). The primary issue in the Sodhi was whether the releases in a settlement letter covered the claims asserted in the action. The motion court held that the releases were broad and covered plaintiffs’ claim to the money alleged
admin
Jan 10, 20223 min read
The Second Department Decided an Issue Under CPLR 3215(c) Addressed by it For the First Time
By Jonathan H. Freiberger On January 5, 2022, the Second Department decided Citibank, N.A. v. Kerszko . The appeal in Citibank raised numerous “interesting and unusual issues,” but the focus of today’s article is on an issue recognized by the Second Department to be addressed by it for the first time: “whether the presentment to a court of a proposed ex parte order to show cause for an order of reference, which is rejected by the court for defects inherent in the papers, qu
admin
Jan 7, 20225 min read
More RPAPL 1304 Cases
By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog’s December 17, 2021, article entitled: “ Second Department Holds that Envelopes Containing Pre-Foreclosure Notices to Borrowers Pursuant to RPAPL 1304 Cannot Contain Any Other Notices Or Information ,” discussed Bank or America, N.A. v. Kessler , in which the Second Department held that RPAPL 1304 ’s mailing requirements for the statutory notices contemplated thereby are to be strictly construed. kessler, and the blog articles hyperlinked
admin
Jan 3, 20224 min read
Out-Of-Pocket Damages, Intent to Deceive and The Business Judgment Rule
By: Jeffrey M. Haber To allege a cause of action based on fraud, plaintiffs must assert “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. 1 To withstand a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must satisfy each element of the claim. One of the most difficult elements
admin
Dec 29, 202111 min read
Usury
By Jonathan H. Freiberger Generally speaking, usury statutes prevent excessive interest from being charged on a loan. The New York Court of Appeals has noted that “ tatutes prohibiting usurious loans were enacted in the 15 th century England, became part of New York’s colonial history, and have remained since” and that “ heir purpose is to protect desperately poor people from the consequences of their own desperation.” Seidel v. 18 East 17 th Street Owners, Inc. , 79 N.Y.2d
admin
Dec 27, 20214 min read
Agreements That Are Not Loans Are Not Subject to New York’s Usury Statutes
By: Jeffrey M. Haber “A transaction ... is usurious under criminal law when it imposes an annual interest rate exceeding 25%.” 1 General Obligations Law § 5–521 bars a corporation from asserting usury in any action, except in the case of criminal usury as defined in Penal Law § 190.40, and then only as a defense to an action to recover repayment of a loan, and not as the basis for a cause of action asserted by the corporation for affirmative relief. 2 As the Appellate Divis
admin
Dec 22, 20215 min read
Enforcement News: California-Based Broker-Dealer Settles With SEC in Connection with The Unregistered Distribution of Stock and The Failure to File SARs Pertaining to Those Transactions
By: Jeffrey M. Haber Broker-dealers are required to file suspicious activity reports (“SARs”) for transactions suspected to involve fraud or a lack of an apparent lawful business purpose. In that regard, under Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 17a-8 promulgated thereunder, a registered broker-dealer is required to file a SAR when it knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that certain transactions (1) involve funds derived from illegal activity, (2) invo
admin
Dec 20, 20213 min read
Second Department Holds That Envelopes Containing Pre-Foreclosure Notices to Borrowers Pursuant to RPAPL 1304 Cannot Contain Any Other Notices or Information
By Jonathan H. Freiberger Followers of this Blog know that we frequently address issues involving residential mortgage foreclosure. Actions involving the pre-foreclosure requirements of RPAPL 1304 are frequently decided by the Appellate Courts in New York and, accordingly, are analyzed in our articles. See, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> . As previously noted
admin
Dec 17, 20214 min read
bottom of page
