All Posts

By: Jeffrey M. Haber New York has a unique mechanism—summary judgment in lieu of complaint—that allows a party to recover money upon the default of an instrument for the payment of money only. Under this mechanism, which is found in CPLR 3213, a party must make the motion for summary judgment before filing a complaint. The purpose of CPLR 3213 “is to provide an accelerated procedure where liability for a certain sum is clearly established by the instrument itself.” In such a

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, foreign business entities – e.g. , corporations, limited liability companies, and partnerships authorized to do business in another jurisdiction or country – are required to register to do business with the Secretary of State. The failure to receive such authority deprives the foreign entity of the ability to affirmatively access the courts of New York and subjects any action commenced by the foreign entity to dismissal. The purpose of the r

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we examine Epstein v. Cantor , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06989 (2d Dept. Dec. 17, 2025) ( Epstein I ), and Epstein v. Cantor , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06990 (Dec. 17, 2025) ( Epstein II ) (collectively, Epstein ), related cases involving, among other things, New York’s partnership law. Epstein centered on whether Cantor, Epstein & Mazzola, LLP (CEM) was a partnership and whether Epstein was a partner in the firm. Cantor argued that Epstein lacke

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger In a previous BLOG article, “ Real Property Owners and Contractors Should be Aware of the Trust Fund Provisions of New York’s Lien Law ,” we discussed Article 3-A of New York’s Lien Law, much of which is reiterated here. Article 3-A of New York’s Lien Law establishes a system of trusts to ensure that certain individuals or entities that contributed services, labor, and/or materials to a construction project for the improvement of real property are p

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we examine defamation per se under New York law, which allows recovery for defamation without proving special damages when the alleged statement falls into four categories: accusing someone of a serious crime, harming their trade or profession, imputing a loathsome disease, or alleging unchastity. In Couteller v. Mamakos , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06965 (1st Dept. Dec. 16, 2025), a building superintendent sued a resident for falsely accusin

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In any contract dispute, “it is necessary to consider the language in the contract, for that is what controls the parties’ rights and responsibilities.” For this reason, New York courts “are guided by the standard rules of contractual interpretation, which provide that ‘a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.’”   In applying these rules of construction, “courts

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Last Week in our BLOG article: “ Just When You Thought It Could Not Get More Unanimous, The Court of Appeals Determines that FAPA’s Retroactive Application Does Not Violate the Due Process or Contract Clauses of the United States Constitution or the Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process Under the New York Constitution – Part 1 ,” we discussed FAPA and the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N. A. , in which the Co

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving different issues impacting a fraud claim. In RSD857, LLC v. Wright , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06833 (1st Dept. Dec. 09, 2025), we examine the actionability of appraisals. In Olshan Frome Wolosky, LLP v. Kestenbaum , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06816 (Dec. 09, 2025), we examine the duplication doctrine. RSD857 involved allegations that one of the defendants orchestrated a foreclosure rescue scheme to acquire anothe

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Brearly v. Weis Mkts., Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 34485(U) (Sup. Ct., Broome County Oct. 31, 2025), the motion court was asked to consider the viability of claims for violations of General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit false advertising and deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce. As discussed below, the motion court held that plaintiff failed to satisfy the elements of the claims asserted.