that an “RPAPL 1304 notice is a notice pursuant to the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act (Real Property Law To establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff RPAPL 1304 After discussing case law along the lines discussed herein, the Second Department noted that In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a copy of the [home equity line of credit The [borrower] established [his] prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on this ground

Haber Implied‑in‑fact contracts under New York law arise from conduct rather than explicit agreement, contract – offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual assent (i.e., a meeting of the minds), legal capacity, lawful based on objective manifestations—not the parties’ unexpressed, subjective beliefs.[2] Under New York law good‑faith performance and may be subject to equitable defenses, applied within the framework of contract law While New York law treats express and implied‑in‑fact contracts as mutually exclusive, the expiration

real property must be in writing to comply with the statute of frauds, New York General Obligations Law agent thereunto authorized by writing.”New York General Obligations Law 5-703(2). “If the contract does not contain all the necessary terms, the law presumes that the parties have not Here, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing doctrine requires that promises must be “sufficiently certain and specific” before “the power of the law

the provisions of this subchapter, and without first being in compliance with all other applicable law the mortgage debt from the mortgagor personally, but to collect it out of the land by enforcing the lien

, the motion court was asked to consider the viability of claims for violations of General Business Law consumers at large.” [4]   Notably, the deceptive practice does not have to rise to “the level of common-law fraud to be actionable under section 349.” [5]  In fact, “[a]lthough General Business Law § 349 claims particular act or advertisement is materially misleading may be made by a reviewing court as a matter of law flavoring, nor [was] it reasonable to presume the product contain[ed] a specific ingredient”. [15]  “Case law

Haber Under Section 706(a) of the New York Business Corporation Law (“BCL”), a director may be removed action of the board.”[2] That provision, noted the Court, was “consistent with Business Corporation Law in the notice of special meeting, Supreme Court correctly found that removal under the original by-laws of correspondence sought by plaintiff [fell] outside of the parameters of the Business Corporation Law Merchant Factors Corp. underscores several core principles of New York corporate law governing director

When companies are involved in litigation and their reputations are on the line, the stakes can be very Under such circumstances, it is imperative that the company brings in a business law firm of unchallenged competence to settle disputes, represent them vigorously in a court of law, and help them keep the business Retzlaff did not originally report the sexual assault because she feared, according to her lawyer, "reprisal Urrutia, as a result, resigned from Turing "in lieu of termination."

case ( i.e. , the court’s subject matter jurisdiction) must be resolved under Business Corporation Law General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-1402 (1)). subject to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of this state under section 302 of the civil practice law Accordingly, the Court ordered “that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the defendants’ motion pursuant Under the General Obligations Law, New York courts will exercise subject matter jurisdiction over claims

that a fraud claim be pleaded with particularity can be found in Section 3016(b) of the Civil Practice Law The Court noted that “the purpose of the ICA was to ‘reconcile the priority of the liens granted by the

reliance, one of the elements of a fraudulent inducement claim, could not be resolved as a matter of law While New York law recognizes that a party may sometimes rely on representations made by a person occupying applie[d] to bar plaintiff’s fraud claim against [defendant] [could not] be determined as a matter of law

Under well-settled New York law, the “best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is February 27, 2020, defendant purported to terminate plaintiff “for cause,” specifically citing his “common law declaratory judgment against defendant that the conduct plaintiff was accused of did not amount to “common law Under New York law, that clarity foreclosed any resort to extrinsic evidence to alter or modify the contractual Court recognized the limit of plain meaning: while the meaning of the contract was fixed as a matter of law

must also be accompanied by proof that the gift was completed in accordance with governing corporate law The Court held that “plaintiff failed to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.”[13 that she has a 25% ownership interest in the Corporation, as she failed to establish, as a matter of law Corporation during his lifetime was not enough, standing alone, to establish ownership as a matter of law As a result, she could not obtain a declaration of a 25% ownership interest as a matter of law.