All Posts

“It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal.”  Matter of Darcy M. , ___ A.D.3d ___ *1 (2 nd Dep’t June 9, 2021) (quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne , 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713 (1980)) (internal quotation marks omitted).  Courts cannot issue “advisory opinions”.  Matter of D

In New York, contracts are to be construed in accordance with the parties’ intent. See , e.g. , Slatt v. Slatt , 64 N.Y.2d 966 (1985). “The best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing.” Slamow v. Del Col , 79 N.Y.2d 1016, 1018 (1992). Thus, a written agreement that is clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms. See , e.g. , W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri , 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162 (1

Cherry picking is the process of selecting securities to invest in by mimicking the trading of other investors (both individual and institutions) who are successful over a long period of time. In other words, cherry-pickers base their trading around the techniques and strategies of other investors.  Anyone can implement a cherry-picking strategy. Indeed, cherry picking is used by both professional and retail investors alike.  Cherry picking can be an effective way to generate

Care should be taken when drafting contracts so that the intention of the parties is set forth in a clear and unambiguous way.  When contracts are clearly drafted, all parties should be aware of their rights, remedies and obligations thereunder.  Further, the existence of clear and unambiguous contracts could streamline litigation if a dispute arises. The law is clear that “ hen the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found

On June 14, 2021, this Blog wrote about FINRA’s fight against the financial exploitation of seniors and vulnerable adults ( here ), in particular, the effort to amend FINRA’s Rule 2165 (“Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults”). Among other things, Rule 2165 permits a member firm to place a temporary hold on the disbursement of funds or securities from the account of a senior or vulnerable adult customer when the member reasonably believes that financial exploitation may

As we have noted previously, the financial exploitation of seniors is a significant problem ( e.g. ,  here ,  here ,  here ,  here , and  here ). For many regulators, it is a top priority. here.=">here</a>."> The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) is one such regulator. To help combat the financial exploitation of seniors and vulnerable adults, FINRA enacted Rule 2165 (“Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults”) ( here ). Among other things, the rule p

This BLOG has written extensively on issues related to residential mortgage foreclosure including, but not limited to: the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> and < HERE =">HERE</a>"> ; the acceleration and deacceleration of mortgage debt < HERE =">HERE</a>"> and < HERE =">HERE</a>"> ; and, Article 15 of the RPAPL < HERE =">HERE</a>"> and

In P & HR Solutions, LLC v. Ram Capital Funding , LLC, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 03554 (1st Dept. June 8, 2021) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department was faced with the situation that is all too common in commercial litigation, plaintiffs trying to assert contract and fraud claims without differentiation. In fact, over the past few months, this Blog has written about numerous appellate cases in which the plaintiffs’ fraud claims were dismissed because they were indistin

On June 3, 2021, the New York Court of Appeals, the State’s highest court, handed down Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. , 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 03485 (June 3, 2021) ( here ), a decision involving a claim under General Business Law § 349 (“GBL § 349”), New York’s consumer fraud statute. In a decision written by Judge Jenny Rivera, a majority of the Court made two rulings that will have an impact on future claims under the statut