Disputes between an insured and insurer occur all the time. These disputes often concern whether the policy covers a certain event. Sometimes, as in AB Oil Servs., Ltd. v. TCE Ins. Servs., Inc. , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 06232 (2d Dept. Nov. 4, 2020) ( here ), the dispute concerns the alleged failure to satisfy a specific request for coverage not already provided in one’s policy. Other times, the dispute concerns alleged fraud and negligent misrepresentation ( i.e. , breach of a du

CPLR 3215(c) , which encourages the prompt entry of default judgments, provides: If the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.  A motion by the defendant under this subdivision does not constitute an appearance i

Anyone reading the newspapers or watching television knows that in the past few weeks the country has seen a surge in new coronavirus cases. As reported in the news media ( e.g. , here ),  “ ighteen states have broken daily records for new cases in the past week and hospitalizations are up in 43 states.”  According to Johns Hopkins University, there are more than 9.2 million coronavirus cases and more than 231,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic. Recognizing the risks

Melville, NY (Law Firm Newswire) November 2, 2020 – 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 first year and Mr. Haber’s ninth consecutive year of selection. Both Messrs. Freiberger and Haber were recognized for their work in business litigation.  “I am honored to be named to

As readers of the Blog know, when it comes to fraud-based actions, we like to write about them. While many of the cases we examine fall into similar patterns, sometimes a case deviates from the norm. King Penguin Opportunity Fund III, LLC v. Spectrum Group Mgt. LLC , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 06230 (1st Dept. Oct. 29, 2020) ( here ), is such as case. King Penguin concerned, among other claims, a fraudulent inducement claim arising from the execution of a term sheet for a proposed l

Readers of this Blog know that, as a general matter, New York courts will not permit a fraud-based claim ( i.e. , fraudulent inducement) to survive a motion to dismiss when the claim arises from a breach of contract. Indeed, courts routinely dismiss a fraud claim where “ he existence of a valid and enforceable written contract govern a particular subject matter” and the recovery sought arises out of the same facts and circumstances. Clark-Fitzpatrick v. Long Is. , 70 N.Y.2d

A shareholder’s derivative action is a lawsuit “brought in the right of a … corporation to procure a judgment in its favor, by a holder of shares or of voting trust certificates of the corporation or of a beneficial interest in such shares or certificates.” Marx v. Akers , 88 N.Y.2d 189, 193 (1996) (quoting Business Corporation Law § 626 (a)). Derivative claims against corporate officers and directors belong to the corporation itself. Auerbach v. Bennett , 47 N.Y.2d 619, 631

Every now and then, we come across a legal principle that we do not frequently write about. One such principle is replevin. A plaintiff brings an action in replevin to recover personal property that was wrongfully taken or withheld. Pivar v. Graduate School of Figurative Art , 290 A.D.2d 212, 212 (1st Dept. 2002) (citations omitted). In a replevin action, the plaintiff seeks the return of property, not money damages. Genger v. Genger , 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 30602 (Sup. Ct., N.Y.

We have noted in prior posts that vacating an arbitration award is very difficult. See , e.g. , here and here . There are a number of bases upon which a movant can seek to vacate an arbitral award. See , e.g. , CPLR § 7511(b). Two such bases are the arbitrator exceeded his/her authority and the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. Under CPLR § 7511 (b) (1) (iii) – vacatur on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded his/her power or so imperfectly executed it – a court wi