By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, when interpreting a contract, the words of the writing must be accorded their fair and reasonable meaning, aiming for a practical interpretation that realizes the reasonable expectations of the parties. The court is required to enforce a written agreement according to the plain meaning of its terms when it is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face.  Although the parties may offer conflicting interpretations of their contract, that do

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber 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 “ n application by or for a member” of the company. In Matter of Bodenchak v. 5178 Holdings LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05875 (1st Dept. Oct. 23, 2025) ( here ), the Ap

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses 1995 Cam LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC , a case decided on October 21, 2025, by the New York Court of Appeals. In 1995 Cam , the Court held that the guaranty executed by guarantor was a “good guy” guaranty and, therefore, liability under the subject commercial lease ended with the tenant’s surrender of possession of the premises and not with the landlord’s acceptance of the surrender. By way of background, a “good guy” gua

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Kellinger v. Fox Media LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 33835(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 8, 2025) ( here ), 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

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber 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.” When addressing the element of justifiable reliance, the “general rule” is th

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses M & T Bank v. Givens , a case decided on October 15, 2025, by the Appellate Division, Second Department. Givens addresses three issues encountered in mortgage foreclosure actions: 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. CPLR 2004 CPLR 2004

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On numerous occasions, this Blog has examined the attorney-client privilege, the common interest doctrine, and the attorney work product doctrine. Today, we take another opportunity to explore the contours of these privileges. In Simpson v. Chassen , the New York Supreme Court compelled the production of a joint defense agreement (“JDA”), rejecting claims that it was protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. The

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber Today, we consider Tahari v. 860 Fifth Ave. Corp. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05584 (1st Dept. Oct. 9, 2025) ( here ), an apparent case of first impression in the Appellate Division, First Department, involving the suability of a board of directors under New York law.    In New York, “the business of a corporation managed under the direction of its board of directors…” Notwithstanding, a corporation’s board of directors is neither empowered to commence an act

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving principles familiar to readers of this Blog: the duplication doctrine and the requirement that plaintiffs plead sufficient facts to satisfy each element of a fraud claim. In Emissions Reduction Corp. v. mCloud Tech. (USA) Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05457 (1st Dept. Oct. 7, 2025) ( here ),  the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s fraud claim on the grounds of dupl