top of page
All Posts
Group Pleading, Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity and Duplication: A Dismissal Trifecta
By: Jeffrey M. Haber As we have often explained in the articles in which we have examined fraud claims, to withstand a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead fraud with particularity as required under CPLR § 3106(b), cannot lump all the defendants together so that the plaintiff runs afoul of the group pleading prohibition, and cannot duplicate a breach of contract claim with the fraud claim. Lerman v. 2211 Third Ave. Mazal Holdings LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34092(U) (Sup.
admin
Nov 27, 20236 min read
Enforcement News: SEC Brings Enforcement Action in Connection EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In July of this year, we wrote about a fraud action involving the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program (“EB-5 Program” or “Program”) ( here ). Under the EB-5 Program, investors are eligible for permanent residency status in the U.S. if they make a qualifying investment in a new commercial enterprise in the U.S. that creates a certain number of permanent full-time jobs for qualified U.S. workers. As we often do in our articles, we examine the legal issues invo
admin
Nov 22, 20238 min read
Fraud: Failure to Identify a False Statement, Group Pleading and The Failure to Plead the Claim with Particularity
By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Barlow v. Skroupa , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05786 (1st Dept. Nov. 16, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of a fraud claim because the plaintiffs failed to plead fraud with particularity, as required under CPLR § 3016(b), and identify any specific misrepresentations of material fact. We examine Barlow below. Plaintiffs, who were employees and consultants of Inspire Summits LLC (“Inspire”), doing business as Skyt
admin
Nov 20, 20235 min read
Second Department Finds That Merchant Agreement Is A Criminally Usurious Loan
By Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s Blog article is about usury, a topic that has previously been covered. See, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> . Society’s disdain for usury was recently articulated by the Court of Appeals in Adar Bays, LLC v. GeneSYS ID, Inc. , 37 N.Y.3d 320 (2021), where the Court stated: Although the ancient laws relating to usury had religious and moral underpinnings, some of which may have
admin
Nov 17, 20235 min read
When Disaster Strikes, is it Spoliation?
By: Jeffrey M. Haber Document discovery is an integral part of any litigation. Documents form the foundation of discovery plans and strategies, and, more significantly, proof at trial. Consequently, litigants must search for, collect, and preserve their documents, particularly electronically stored information (“ESI”), from the moment they are aware of their involvement, or potential involvement, in a lawsuit ( i.e. , when there is a reasonable anticipation that a lawsuit may
admin
Nov 15, 20234 min read
Veil Piercing Rejected By Second Department in Judgment Enforcement Action
By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is well-settled that a corporation (or limited liability company) acts through its officers, directors and owners. As a result, these individuals are normally not liable for the debts incurred by the corporation (or limited liability company). However, when an officer, director or shareholder abuses the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against a third party, courts will intervene on behalf of the third party to hold the corporate actor
admin
Nov 13, 20233 min read
First Department Concludes the Automatic Stay of Discovery Under the PSLRA Does Not Apply During the Pendency of an Appeal
By: Jeffrey M. Haber Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA), a mandatory stay of discovery is imposed “ n any private action arising under” the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) “during the pendency of any motion to dismiss.” 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(b)(1). In Camelot Event Driven Fund v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05534 (1st Dept. Nov. 2, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department was asked to determine whether t
admin
Nov 8, 20233 min read
The Third Department Adopts The Second Department’s Holding In Yapkowitz, Which Requires That RPAPL 1304 Notices Be Separately Sent In Separate Envelopes To Each Borrower
By Jonathan H. Freiberger This Blog has written numerous articles about RPAPL 1304 . See, e.g., < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> and the Blog articles linked to therein. By way of brief background as discussed in prior articles, RPAPL 1304 requires that at least ninety days before commencing legal action against a borrower with respect to a “home loan” (as defined in
admin
Nov 6, 20235 min read
Freiberger Haber’s Co-Founding Partners Once Again Recognized By Super Lawyers Magazine®
Melville, NY November 3, 2023 – Freiberger Haber LLP is pleased to announce that co-founding partners, Jonathan H. Freiberger and Jeffrey M. Haber, have been named by Super Lawyers Magazine® to be among the top lawyers in the New York metropolitan area. This is Mr. Freiberger’s fourth, and Mr. Haber’s twelfth, consecutive year of selection. Both Messrs. Freiberger and Haber were recognized for their work in business and commercial litigation. Super Lawyers Magazine® is an aff
admin
Nov 3, 20232 min read
bottom of page
