All Posts

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Last Week in our BLOG article: “ It’s Unanimous – The Fourth Department Joins the Other Departments and Confirms the Retroactive Application of FAPA ,” we again discussed FAPA and noted that on November 25, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals decided two cases: Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank , and Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N. A. , in which the Court determined that retroactive application of FAPA’s provisions passes constitutional muster und

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Badme v. AECOM , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06640, (1st Dept. Dec. 02, 2025), plaintiff sued for age discrimination after termination, arguing the arbitration clause in his employment contract expired when the contract ended. The motion court held that the arbitration agreement remained enforceable, citing the contract’s broad arbitration clause and survival clause. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, emphasizing that the contract’s broad arbi

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Kober v. Nestampower , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06609 (2d Dept. Nov. 26, 2025), the Appellate Division, Second Department, decided an appeal involving disputes over membership interests in a limited liability company. After a member’s death, her daughter attempted to assign the trust’s LLC interest to herself and siblings without obtaining consent from other members. Plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief and damages. The Court held that under New York’s Li

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger oday’s article is about MCLP Asset Co. v. Zaveri , an action that involves numerous areas of the law about which we frequently write -- mortgage foreclosure, FAPA, CPLR 205(a), CPLR 205-A and statutes of limitation. Statute of Limitations in Foreclosure Actions By way of brief background, and as previously written in this BLOG, an action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations. CPLR 213(4) ; see also Medina v. Bank

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber On November 18, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) announced that, on October 16, 2025, it charged Joshua Wander (“Defendant A”), Steven Pasko (“Defendant B”), and two companies that they founded, co-managed, and controlled—777 Partners LLC and 600 Partners LLC—with defrauding investors while raising approximately $237 million. The Commission also charged Damien Alfalla (“Defendant C”), the companies’ former Chief Finan

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we explore New York’s heightened pleading standard for defamation per se and defamation by implication. In Armbruster Capital Mgt., Inc. v. Barrett , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06493 (4th Dept. Nov. 21, 2025), defendants sought to amend a counterclaim alleging that emails from plaintiff’s executives implied defendant lacked professional integrity. Initially denied by the motion court, the amendment was later deemed sufficient because defendan

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger On October 31, 2025, the Supreme Court, Kings County, decided loanDepot.com LLC v. Ortner , a case addressing the meaning of the “taking proceedings” requirement of CPLR 3215(c) . By way of brief background, when a defendant defaults in appearing in an action, CPLR 3215(c) requires that the plaintiff act promptly to secure a default judgment. As previously discussed in prior BLOG articles, CPLR 3215(c) provides, in pertinent part, that: If the pla

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Sire Spirits, LLC v. Beam Suntory, Inc. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06297 (1st Dept. Nov. 18, 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of a motion to amend a complaint seeking damages for “diminution of enterprise value” due to the alleged fraud. Under CPLR 3025(b), leave to amend is freely given unless the amendment is prejudicial or patently meritless. However, New York’s fraud damages rule limits recovery to out-of-pocket losses

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Allen v. Fidelity Brokerage Servs. LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 34169(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 30, 2025), plaintiff, the representative of her son’s estate, sought to vacate a FINRA arbitration award after claims alleging negligent oversight of speculative options trading were denied. The arbitration panel imposed $25,000 in sanctions for violating FINRA Rule 12209 by filing a parallel court action. Plaintiff argued the panel exceeded its authority