In Stagen v. Neu , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 06105 (1st Dept. Nov. 28, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed an issue of contract interpretation involving a word in a settlement agreement that most readers would think has a distinct and undisputed meaning – “employ”. As discussed below, the Court found an issue of fact as to what it means to be “employed” in the context of the record before it.  The Court also touched upon the law surrounding third-party

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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