All Posts

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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 Act … for 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. The purpose of the Custody Rule is to protect investment advisory clients from, among other things,

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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.” For this reason, “ release should never be converted into a starting point for … litigation except under circumstances and under

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger 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.’” Buran v. Coupal , 87 N.Y.2d 173, 177 (1995) (citation omitted). The Doctrine was codified by the CPLR. See, e.g., CPLR 203(b), (c), (e) and

By: Jeffrey M. Haber 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. Ponzi schemes persist by exploiting trust, promising high returns with little risk, and using money from new or existing investors to pay “profits” to earlier

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber As readers know from past articles, CPLR § 7511 (b) sets forth the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award. 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. With resp

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger 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 general, “to prevail on a cause of action to recover a commission, the broker must establish (1) that it is duly licensed, (2) that it had contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying t

By:   Jeffrey M. Haber 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. Light & Wonder

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine in which a court may dismiss an action where another forum would be better suited to adjudicate the matter. In New York, the doctrine is codified in CPLR 327(a). Under this section, a court may “stay or dismiss action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just” if it finds that “in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum.” The doctrine reflects the basic p

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger 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 merely by bringing it.” Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Hall , 185 A.D.3d 1006, 1007 (2 nd Dep’t 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Once served with process, a defendant must appear in an action to avoid a default. CPLR 320