New York’s adoption of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act in 2019 modernized its Debtor and Creditor Law. The revised law allows creditors to void both actual and constructive fraudulent transfers. Constructive fraud focuses on inadequate value and insolvency, while actual fraud hinges on intent, assessed via “badges of fraud.”

In today’s article, we examine Harris v. Dream Volunteers, a case in which the court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of contract interpretation: contracts that are clear and unambiguous must be enforced according to their plain terms.

Under New York’s Limited Liability Company Law (“LLCL”) § 702, a court “may decree dissolution of a limited liability company whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the articles of organization or operating agreement.” The claim must be brought “[o]n application by or for a member” of the company.

In 1995 Cam LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC, the Court of Appeals held that a “good guy” guarantor’s liability under a commercial lease ends when the tenant vacates and surrenders possession, not when the landlord accepts the surrender.

In Kellinger v. Fox Media LLC, the New York Supreme Court granted a motion brought by defendants to enforce a $15,000 settlement agreement with plaintiff. The motion court found that plaintiff had confirmed the settlement by email, satisfying CPLR 2104’s requirement for a written agreement. Although plaintiff later claimed he only agreed to review the documents, the motion court held that his email constituted a binding acceptance of the settlement.

As readers of this Blog know, a “cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation requires a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury.”

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses M & T Bank v. Givens , a case decided on October 15, 2025, by the Appellate Division, Second Department. Givens addresses three issues encountered in mortgage foreclosure actions: motions for extensions of time pursuant to CPLR 2004 , the 90-day requirement to conduct foreclosure sales pursuant to RPAPL 1351(1) and the tolling of interest due to a lender’s delays in prosecuting its foreclosure action. CPLR 2004 CPLR 2004

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On numerous occasions, this Blog has examined the attorney-client privilege, the common interest doctrine, and the attorney work product doctrine. Today, we take another opportunity to explore the contours of these privileges. In Simpson v. Chassen , the New York Supreme Court compelled the production of a joint defense agreement (“JDA”), rejecting claims that it was protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. The

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Today, we consider Tahari v. 860 Fifth Ave. Corp. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05584 (1st Dept. Oct. 9, 2025) ( here ), an apparent case of first impression in the Appellate Division, First Department, involving the suability of a board of directors under New York law. In New York, “the business of a corporation managed under the direction of its board of directors…” Notwithstanding, a corporation’s board of directors is neither empowered to commence an act