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.

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.