American Zurich Ins. Co., 18 N.Y.3d 765, 770 (some citations omitted).)  With respect to mortgage foreclosure actions, GOL § 17-105 applies.  Bank, amortgage foreclosure action, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of the action due to a scheduled conference and to diligently prosecute the action.  To equate the simple act of indicating "retain, keep current" in the Statement of Intention with the

one-third of the membership interests in a limited liability company (that was not yet formed) that would act modified the order to the extent of granting the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action Courts will enforce agreements the parties actually made, not the deals they hoped to complete later. 1994) (“The IAS Court properly dismissed, without leave to replead, the plaintiffs’ first cause of action , purporting to set forth a cause of action for breach of contract, as too indefinite, and therefore,

contribution from the third-party defendant, German American Capital Corporation (“German American Capital German American Capital moved to dismiss the amended third-party complaint in its entirety on the grounds In opposing German American Capital’s motion, the developer defendants argued that Foremost pleaded tort This allegation was, however, based on a mistake of fact as to the ownership, as it was German American As noted above, the decision of the prior action against German American Capital held that the foreclosure

Once served with process, a defendant must appear in an action to avoid a default. An appearance pursuant to CPLR §320(a) is a formal appearance in the action. litigate the action before the Supreme Court or participate in the action on the merits.” The plaintiff in Whiteside commenced a wrongful death action in 2006. stipulation with the plaintiff, and opposed the plaintiff’s motion to hold them in contempt [by which] acts

is conclusively bound by its terms unless there is a showing of fraud, duress or some other wrongful act 266. [7] Slip Op. at *1. [8] A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(1) ( i.e. , that the action

misrepresentation of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act “In a fraud action, whether a party could have ascertained the facts with reasonable diligence so as

on behalf of the corporation and regardless of whether the corporate veil is pierced); American Express Plaintiff maintained that, because the last actionable act occurred in May 2016, when the Other Defendants The application of the continuing wrong doctrine must “be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and “Because these claims are premised upon ‘continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of act’ of the Other Defendants occurred in May 2016, as Plaintiff contends.”

broker-dealers and certain excess insurers concerning the availability of coverage under a “wrongful act The policy provided coverage for “wrongful acts” of the Companies and its subsidiaries. any claim (defined as including any civil proceeding or governmental investigation) for any wrongful act , which encompassed any actual or alleged act, error, omission, misstatement, neglect, or breach of duty Congress created Fair Funds in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 91 A.D.3d 226 (1st Dept. 2011). 21 N.Y

Co., Inc. , 32 A.D3d 1306, 1306 (4th Dept. 2006); American Credit Servs. v. bars enforcement of a promise to pay commissions that extends indefinitely, dependent solely on the acts

misrepresentations in an offering memorandum governing subordinated notes, the First Department dismissed the action in its entirety, holding that the written disclosures, read as a whole, negated any claim of actionable Cortlandt brought the action as assignee of the beneficial owners of interests in the subordinated notes The action, originally filed in 2011 and recommenced in 2017, asserted claims for fraud and breach of The ruling also highlights that allegations that a defendant secretly intended to act inconsistently

was actually commenced within the applicable limitations period.”[3] A cause of action sounding in Yudkin was an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud. of limitations.[20] Under New York law, the doctrine “may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts alleging fraud on the ground, among others, that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action. alleging fraud.”[55] Takeaway Yudkin highlights the need for litigants to act on the facts and circumstances

A “ aiver may be accomplished by express agreement or by such conduct or failure to act as to evince When the defendant took steps to terminate the lease, the plaintiff commenced a declaratory judgment action