Search Results

Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine Yudkin v. 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.[1] Yudkin v. Yudkin was an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud. Lapin highlights the need to satisfy each element of a fraud claim.

Haber In today’s fraud notes, we examine two cases: K.M. v. Ursuline involved the failure to satisfy the elements of a fraud claim.[1] To state a claim for fraud fraud-based action must be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years from the time Supreme Court dismissed all claims, but the fraud causes of action. litigation: how fraud must be pleaded and when it can be pursued.

Haber A claim for fraud requires “a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an Defendant also argued that she could not be held personally liable for AF’s alleged fraud. lacked personal jurisdiction over her and that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she perpetrated a fraud ,” while at the same time believing “[defendant’s] account … that she was not a part of the alleged fraud ”, “fraudulent inducement” and any of the elements of a fraud claim in the “search” box. [3] Am.

Ct., Suffolk County) (here), the court declined to dismiss fraud claims, among others, finding that plaintiff allegations gave fair and reasonable notice of the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged fraud The court also noted that the fraud claims were distinct from any breach of contract claims asserted Defendants moved to dismiss, inter alia, the fraud claims asserted against them. Note: “A cause of action to recover damages for fraud will not lie where the only fraud claimed arises

Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two recent appellate court decisions that highlight the role statutes of limitations play in fraud-based claims. June 24, 2026), the Appellate Division, Second Department, offers important insight on when fraud claims discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it, whichever is later.”[4] The Court held that plaintiff’s claim sounding fraud was time barred.

Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving principles familiar to readers of this Blog duplication doctrine and the requirement that plaintiffs plead sufficient facts to satisfy each element of a fraud Oct. 7, 2025) (here), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s fraud Emissions Reduction is notable because the Court held that the alleged fraud damages were not distinct Defendants moved, inter alia, to dismiss plaintiff’s fraud claims.

Haber As readers of this Blog know, we have written about many types of fraud over the years, such as affinity fraud, common law fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraudulent concealment, and securities fraud Another type of fraud concerns fraud in the execution or fraud in the factum.[1] Three years ago, we Fraud In the Factum: A Primer Fraud in the execution, or fraud in the factum, arises where a party did in the execution is different than fraud in the inducement.

Haber Under New York law, fraud claims are not duplicative of breach of contract claims when they are Apr. 16, 2026), that plaintiff adequately pleaded both fraud and breach of contract claims arising from defendants allegedly acted in bad faith to interfere with Metropolitan’s rights, and held that the fraud In that regard, a fraud claim will be deemed duplicative of a contract claim when the fraud claim arises damages. [14]  Overlapping remedies did not doom the fraud claims because the alleged fraud concerned

Division, First Department, modified an order denying in part a motion to dismiss a complaint containing fraud 2019 complaint filed by the New York Attorney General placed them on inquiry notice of the alleged fraud BH 336 Partners  is an action alleging fraud and fraudulent inducement in connection with a series of Plaintiffs commenced the action on August 9, 2023, asserting claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement These Defendants contended that the assignee Plaintiffs could not assert fraud or fraudulent‑inducement

Rubin, plaintiff, once the majority shareholder of a healthcare company, brought the action alleging fraud As discussed below, Rubin highlights the intersection of bankruptcy law, corporate transactions, and fraud In 2018, plaintiff commenced the action seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, repayment Takeaway Rubin underscores three interrelated legal principles that ultimately defeated plaintiff’s fraud This outcome, therefore, serves as a reminder that even meritorious fraud claims can be dismissed before

Haber Affinity fraud is a form of financial fraud that relies on social connections and trust. In many cases, affinity fraud begins with what appears to be a legitimate opportunity. Some affinity frauds are later revealed to be Ponzi or pyramid schemes, where returns paid to earlier The effects of affinity fraud extend beyond financial loss. That reliance on military identity as a credibility tool is a central characteristic of affinity fraud

Haber Ponzi schemes and affinity fraud frequently overlap because both exploit trust and social interactions Ponzi schemes and affinity fraud also thrive in settings where doubts can be suppressed. Finally, affinity fraud capitalizes on emotional bonds. Ayasa, LLC (“TWA”), which operated through various corporate forms, for allegedly conducing an affinity fraud According to the SEC, since at least 2021, Defendants perpetrated an investment fraud and Ponzi scheme