All Posts

By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog frequently writes on numerous issues related to mortgage foreclosure.  One aspect of a foreclosure action is the calculation of the amounts due to the lender.  Generally, when the foreclosing lender moves for summary judgment and/or a default judgment it also moves for the appointment of a referee to compute the amounts due to the lender.  [Eds. Note: this BLOG has previously written about referees in foreclosure actions.  See, e.g., < her

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is not often that we examine a case involving the doctrine of champerty. The last time we did so was on March 8, 2023 ( here ). We also examined the champerty doctrine in 2021 ( here ), 2020 ( here ), and 2016 ( here ).  Today, we examine the champerty doctrine in our discussion of IKB Intl. S.A. v. Morgan Stanley , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 01675 (1st Dept. Mar. 26, 2024) ( here ). Champerty is the prohibited practice of purchasing claims for the purpose of

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On many occasions, we have written about Ponzi schemes that have been the subject of enforcement actions brought by, and/or settlements with, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”). E.g ., here , here , here , here , and here . We remain unsurprised by the frequency with which people operate a Ponzi scheme and do so by exploiting the trust and friendship that exist in groups of people who have something in common, such as a rel

By Jonathan H. Freiberger On March 19, 2024, the Court of Appeals decided Favourite Limited v. Cico , a case concerning “the proper scope of the trial court's discretion to grant leave to amend a complaint under CPLR 3025 (b) .” (Hyperlink added.)  [Eds. Note: this BLOG has previously addressed CPLR 3025 < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> .   This BLOG has previously explained that CPLR 3025(b) provides, in pertinent p

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber As we have often explained in the articles in which we have examined the duplication doctrine, fraud claims that are nothing more than contract claims dressed up in fraud clothing, are subject to dismissal. E.g. , here ,  here ,  here , and  here . Thus, courts will apply the doctrine when a plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim and a fraud claim that arise from the same facts and circumstances. When that happens, the fraud claim will be deemed du

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Actions or proceedings (collectively, “Actions”) are commenced by filing the initiatory papers with the appropriate county clerk.  CPLR 304(a) . 1 Once the Action is commenced, the plaintiff is required to serve the initiatory papers on the defendant and, generally, such service must occur within 120 days after the Action is commenced.  CPLR 306-b . 2 “If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon

By: Jeffrey M. Haber The common law doctrine of caveat emptor is a well-accepted rule of law in New York. Under the doctrine, the courts will not impose liability on a seller of property for failing to disclose information material to the transaction when the parties deal at arm’s length, 1 unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller which constitutes active concealment. 2 “If, however, some conduct ( i.e. , more than mere silence) on the part of the seller rises

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) governs the confirmation, vacatur, modification, and enforcement of arbitration awards. Under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii), a court may vacate an arbitration award if “an arbitrator, or agency or person making the award exceeded his power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” In addition, a court may vacate an award when it

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In commercial and business litigation, it is common for plaintiffs to assert claims against a business entity for wrongs committed by a corporate entity. Often, plaintiffs will try to “pierce the corporate veil,” or get behind the corporate form, to hold the entity’s officers or members liable for the alleged wrongdoing.  “Generally, a plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corpora