All Posts

This Blog has previously addressed “economic duress” and the “voluntary payment doctrine.” < HERE =">HERE</a>"> , < HERE =">HERE</a>"> and < HERE =">HERE</a>"> “Economic duress” is a theory upon which a “complaining party to void a contract and recover damages when it establishes that it was compelled to agree to the contract terms because of a wrongful threat by the other party which precluded the exercise of its free will.”  805 Third Ave. Co. v. M.W. Realty Assoc. , 58 N

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Practice Law and Rules set forth the grounds upon which an arbitration award can be vacated. here,=">here</a>," >here=">here</a>" and="and" >here.=">here</a>."> One of the grounds for vacatur is arbitrator bias. In today’s article, we look at Carter v. Royal Alliance Assoc., Inc. , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 32086(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County June 30, 2020) ( here ), a case involving a motion to vacate an arbitral award due to alleged

We have often written about the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim ( e.g. , here , here , here , here , and here ). Though the outcome of the issue is typically fact dependent, dismissals nevertheless occur because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that reliance was reasonable or justified. Such was the case (for the most part) in Carmen E. Maestro Family Trust v. 449 Washington LLC , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 32054(U) (Sup. Ct., Kings County June 22, 2020) ( here ), the s

It is not uncommon for parties in commercial transactions to include in their contracts a provision that limits the types of damages recoverable in the event of a breach. Typically, these provisions include a limitation on the recovery of lost profits. An example of such a provision, drawn from the agreement in Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Hetero USA, Inc. , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 03285 (1st Dept. June 11, 2020) ( here ), provides: “no party shall be liable to the other party for i

In prior posts, we examined the rules of contract formation. In our most recent post on the subject ( here ), we considered a case in which one of the issues before the court was whether there was an exchange of consideration sufficient to support the formation of a contract. Today, we examine Galarneau v. D’Andrea , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 03584 (3d Dept. June 25, 2020) ( here ), a case in which the Appellate Division, Third Department was asked to consider whether plaintiff demo

Recognizing the “continuing restrictions on the filing and prosecution of foreclosure matters in New York State arising during the course of the COVID-19 public health emergency,” on June 23, 2020, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks issued a memorandum (the “June 23 Memorandum”) on temporary protocols (the “Protocols”) for residential and commercial foreclosure proceedings.  The temporary protocols became effective as of June 24, 2020. The Protocols are as follows:

It is well settled that a plaintiff may not “dress up a breach-of-contract claim as a fraud claim.” Cohen v. Koenig , 25 F.3d 1168, 1173 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). In prior posts, we referred to this principle as the duplication of claims doctrine ( here , here and here ).  In order for a tort claim to be actionable, there must be “a legal duty independent of the contract” that “has been violated.” Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co. , 70 N.Y

In Pizzarotti, LLC v. Phipps & Co. , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 50696(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County June 17, 2020) ( here ), Justice Gerald Lebovits of the Supreme Court, New York County, recently addressed a number of issues that we often examine, among them, a motion to dismiss on the basis of documentary evidence, breach of contract and common-law indemnification. We examine these issues and Pizzarotti below.  Dismissal on the Basis of Documentary Evidence Under CPLR § 3211(a), a par

Just recently, we wrote about the importance of pleading fraud with particularity ( here ).  As readers of this Blog know, when fraud is alleged, the plaintiff must plead the claim with particularity. Under CPLR § 3016 (b), the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with sufficient detail “to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct.” Pludeman v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc. , 10 N.Y.3d 486, 491 (2008) (citation omitted). To satisfy the particularity requi