Obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a critical aspect of litigation. There are two components of personal jurisdiction.

Pursuant to CPLR 3213, a plaintiff may commence an action “based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment” by filing a summons and motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ponzi schemes and affinity fraud frequently overlap because both exploit trust and social interactions to operate effectively.

In today’s article, we examine BLDG 44 Developers LLC v. Pace Companies N.Y., LLC, a case involving consequential damages.

In Finkelstein v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op 32882(U) (Sup. Ct., July 30, 2025) (here), plaintiff alleged that he was underpaid on his investment in a residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trust due to the improper exercise of termination rights by the trust’s servicers. The servicers argued that the governing agreement barred the action because it included a “no action” clause.

The Second Department has stated that an “RPAPL 1304 notice is a notice pursuant to the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act (Real Property Law § 265-a), the underlying purpose of which is to afford greater protections to homeowners confronted with foreclosure.”

On occasion, we examine procedural matters that have an impact on the substantive rights of the parties. In Richardson v. Beal, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32804(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 24, 2025) (here), the procedural matter at issue concerned the date on which a filing is deemed to be filed.

In Southgate Owners Corp. v. Esposito, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32750(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 24, 2025), plaintiff sued defendant, a shareholder in its cooperative building, seeking a declaratory judgment that 80 additional shares had been properly allocated to her unit following a 1996 expansion of her unit into terrace space.

This article examines the liability of insurance brokers who fail to procure requested coverage. In New York, brokers generally owe clients a duty to obtain specifically requested insurance but have no ongoing duty to advise unless a "special relationship" exists.

In today’s installment of Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving claims of fraud: K.M. v. Ursuline School of New Rochelle and Three C, LLC v. City Settlement Serv., Inc.

On August 1, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced (here) that it charged a Wisconsin resident and three limited liability companies that he owns and controls – Investors Capital LLC, Global Investors Capital LLC, and High Income Performance Partners LLC (collectively, the “Entity Defendants”) – with perpetrating a real estate-related offering fraud.

By Jonathan H. Freiberger In today’s BLOG we will address the enforcement of foreign judgments (i.e., judgments obtained outside the State of New York) in New York. Simply stated, armed with a money judgment, a judgment creditor can employ numerous available procedures to assist in the collection of the outstanding judgment debt. Article 52 of the CPLR (Enforcement of Money Judgments) provides for many enforcement options. Judgments obtained in New York can be enforced immed

The Custody Rule provides that “it is a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act, practice or course of business within the meaning of section 206(4) of the [Advisers] Act … for [a registered investment adviser] to have custody of client funds or securities unless” the adviser implements an enumerated set of requirements to prevent loss, misuse, or misappropriation of those funds and securities.

This Blog has written frequently about the substance and scope of general releases. In New York, “a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release.” If “the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a ‘jural act’ binding on the parties.”

Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”), which, inter alia, “allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are “‘united in interest.’"”

This Blog has written about Ponzi schemes on numerous occasions. A Ponzi scheme is a type of investment fraud where returns to earlier investors are paid using investment capital from new or existing investors, rather than from legitimate profits earned through the enterprise’s business activities.

As readers know from past articles, CPLR § 7511 (b) sets forth the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award.[1] Under that section, a court may vacate an award if the rights of the movant were prejudiced by: (1) corruption, fraud, or misconduct in procuring the award; (2) partiality of the arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator exceeding or imperfectly executing his/her power; or (4) the arbitrator failing to follow the procedure of Article 75.

Folks enter into brokerage agreements all the time. The most familiar situation involving brokerage agreements are those related to the sale of real property. Litigation over brokerage agreements often involves the payment of commissions.