or corporation shall, directly or indirectly, charge, take or receive any money, goods or things in action corporate borrower from raising the defense of “criminal usury” ( i.e. , interest over 25%) in a civil action dispute, the motion court next addressed whether defendants met their burden of showing that plaintiff acted

that would of itself give the obligee a claim for damages for total breach or a voluntary affirmative act American List Corp. , 75 N.Y.2d at 44. At bottom, both actions seek a judicial determination as to the terms of a contract, and the mere act Takeaway  New York follows the “traditional standard,” requiring an unequivocal statement or act to As the Court noted: “the mere act of asking for judicial approval to avoid a performance obligation is

amended complaint alleging that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company In" 1996,="1996," Candie’s="Candie’s" Securities Act="Securities Act" (the="(the" “Securities="“Securities " Act”)="Act”)" in="in" connection="connection" scheme="scheme" to="to" evade="evade" the registration to Iconix of certain incentive-based compensation pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Under CPLR § 3218(a),  a judgment by confession may be entered, without an action, either for money due The court explained that “ n settling the action, they expressly agreed, with the advice of counsel, On its face, CPLR § 3218 applies only to confessions of judgment executed “without an action”. 23 Filing American Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. , 6 N.Y.3d 242, 247 (2006) (quoting Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Audio Active Ltd. , 494 F.3d 378, 383, 386 (2d Cir. 2007). Brooke Grp. , 87 N.Y.2d at 534.

York State Cost of Financial Exploitation Study,” approximately five million seniors and vulnerable Americans (“Ffriend Enterprises”), acted as the producing agents for Security Mutual on the transaction. Plaintiffs commenced the action to recover the unpaid funds. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for fraud, fraudulent inducement, rescission, breach of fiduciary procurement of insurance products to even extending a personal loan to her as well as Ffriend’s wife acting

conveyances by defendants) provides that a conveyance made without fair consideration by a defendant in an action fails to satisfy a resulting judgment in the action. Eagle Eye was brought as a collection action against a nonparty. On the issue of good faith, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants acted in bad faith Defendants cannot have acted in bad faith to engineer a transfer to a straw purchaser two months before

for the relation-back doctrine is found in CPLR 203(c) and (f).[5] CPLR 203(c) provides that “[i]n an action interposed against the defendant or a co-defendant united in interest with such defendant when the action that he or she will not be prejudiced in defending the action on the merits. new party is to be added, the newly added defendant must have known, or should have known, that the action Where one party is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of another, their available defenses

Defendant moved to dismiss, among other claims, the fraud cause of action on the grounds that the claim to cover plaintiffs’ fraud claim.” 3 In New York, “a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action release.” 4 If “the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a ‘jural act AmÉrica MÓvil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 N.Y.3d 269, 277 (2011); Sodhi v.

abetting claim failed for lack of an underlying fraud claim, since there was no underlying fraud cause of action the Surrogate’s Court could not be imputed to defendants because “defendants’ mother, a nonparty, was actually third-party reliance does not satisfy the reliance element of a fraud claim unless the third party “acted third-party reliance does not satisfy the reliance element of a fraud claim unless the third party “acted

It is incumbent on the surety seeking to be discharged to demonstrate that an obligee’s act has so prejudiced The plaintiff in Paganini brought an action against her residential landlord seeking, inter alia , a Landlord commenced a third-party action against guarantors of tenants’ obligations under the lease. 

Plaintiff brought the action for breach of contract and quantum meruit, seeking payment of the alleged American Intl. Grp. , 66 N.Y.2d 878, 880 (1985)).

Court noted, “as long as an honest arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting arbitration, seeking rescission of the PA on the grounds that it was the product of the firm’s wrongful acts