In Light & Wonder, Inc. v. Mohawk Gaming Enters. LLC, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51070(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 2, 2025 (here), the Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division, upheld an arbitrator’s class certification award. The decision centered on whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority or manifestly disregarded the law by certifying a class without individually analyzing the arbitration clauses of absent class members.

In Korea Inv. & Sec. Co., Ltd. v. Seabury Capital Group LLC, the court dismissed a fraud complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, finding New York lacked a substantial nexus to the alleged misconduct.

Appearing in an action may give rise to a waiver of a litigant’s right to challenge the court’s jurisdiction over the litigant. As explained in prior blog articles, it is axiomatic that a “plaintiff appears [in an action] merely by bringing it.”

A Ponzi scheme is an investment scam that induces people to invest money in a business or investment vehicle with promises of high returns and minimal risk. Rather than earning profits through actual investments or legitimate business operations, the scheme functions by paying early investors with money contributed by new or repeat participants.

Today’s article relates to summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213

In Wilburger v. Ava Labs, Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51072(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 3, 2025) (here), plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent inducement related to unpaid compensation for services rendered under an Independent Contractor Agreement.

Under New York law, an action based upon fraud must be commenced within six years of the date the cause of action accrued, or within two years of the time the plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence, whichever is greater.

On June 26, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC”) announced (here) that it charged a Manchester, New Hampshire resident, a real estate investment coach and real estate investment coach, with defrauding investors through real estate investment schemes resulting in losses of at least $3 million.

In today’s article, we discuss how courts interpret arbitration clauses in contracts by focusing on Perle Tech. Inc. v. United Apollo Intl. Inc., a case recently decided in Supreme Court, Kings County. Despite the use of the word “may” in the arbitration clause, the court held that arbitration was mandatory, not permissive, due to other contract provisions indicating clear intent to arbitrate.

This BLOG has written extensively on a wide variety of issues in the area of mortgage foreclosure. One particular area that has been the subject of numerous articles is RPAPL 1304.

In Lopez v. O’Sullivan, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32178(U) (Sup. Ct., Suffolk County) (here), the court declined to dismiss fraud claims, among others, finding that plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim for such relief against the defendants. The court determined that plaintiff provided detailed allegations of misrepresentations made by defendants, which induced him to enter into transactions that ultimately deprived him of ownership of his property.

In Bardy v. Bonnem, the plaintiff sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for an ownership option in a drive-thru coffee business. The motion court upheld the agreement based on an email proposal orally accepted by the plaintiff and partial performance. On appeal, the Second Department modified the motion court’s order, finding the email lacked essential terms to satisfy New York’s Statute of Frauds (GOL § 5-701) and that the contract could not be performed within one yea

This BLOG frequently writes about mortgage foreclosure, generally, and RPAPL 1304, specifically

In One River Run Acquisition, LLC v. Milde, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03653 (1st Dept. June 17, 2025) (here), the Appellate Division, First Department reinstated counterclaims for fraud and fraudulent transfers after they had been dismissed at the motion court level.

In Marinos v. Brahaj, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled that a wrongful death claim brought by a decedent’s administrators was not subject to an arbitration clause the decedent had agreed to.

Generally speaking, a party is bound by the terms of a contract[1] to which it is a party. Thus, contracts should be enforced according to their terms when they are “clear and unambiguous”.This is so even when a party fails to read the contract prior to executing same (Id. at 5,*7 and 11) or if the signer does not understand the English language.

CPLR 3213 allows a plaintiff to move for summary judgment before the complaint is filed, directly challenging the defendant’s ability to contest the underlying claim. It bypasses traditional pleading and discovery and is available when the action is based on an instrument for the payment of money only.[2] The purpose of CPLR 3213 “is to provide an accelerated procedure where liability for a certain sum is clearly established by the instrument itself.”

In New York, the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims varies by remedy: three years for monetary relief, six years for equitable or fraud-based claims. A claim accrues when the fiduciary openly repudiates their duty or when damages occur. In Lambos v. Karabinis, a case that we examine today, the court found no clear repudiation of fiduciary duties, so the statute of limitations had not begun to run.