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.

Discovery, an important part of the litigation process, enables litigants to collect information to assist in the prosecution and defense of a case. Because full disclosure is important, there are penalties for abusing the disclosure process. Today’s BLOG article focusses on spoliation[1] of evidence.

In Skyview Capital, LLC v. Conduent Business Servs., LLC, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03291 (1st Dept. June 03, 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed various issues concerning fraud causes of action with which readers of this Blog are familiar: the duplication doctrine, justifiable reliance and disclaimer clauses

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine Yudkin v. Evergreen Terrace 888 Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 03223 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025), and Lapin v. Verner, 2025 NY Slip Op 03184 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025). Yudkin involved the statute of limitations for fraud and the continuing wrong doctrine. Lapin involved the failure to plead the elements of a fraud claim.

In today’s Blog, we revisit the requirement in RPAPL 1351(1) that a foreclosure sale occur within 90 days of the date of the judgment of foreclosure and sale.

Today, we examine an enforcement action brought by the SEC involving a Ponzi-like scheme that targeted retired senior citizens that the defendant met through his church community

A claim for fraud requires “a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff and damages.” In First Trinity Life Ins. Co. v. Advance Funding LLC, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03133 (1st Dept. May 22, 2025), discussed below, knowledge of falsity (i.e., scienter) and reliance were the elements at issue.