In general, statutes of limitation govern the time in which a cause of action must be interposed after accrual.

In New York, the doctrine of caveat emptor — “let the buyer beware” — remains an important principle in residential real estate transactions. Unlike many other states that require extensive seller disclosures, New York adheres to a more traditional approach: absent fraud, active concealment, or a special relationship, a seller has no general duty to volunteer information about defective conditions in the property.

On June 5, 2026, the SEC charged an investment adviser and related entities with a multi-year fraud involving a pooled investment fund that raised about $4 million from 28 investors. The SEC alleged the defendant misappropriated and commingled funds, concealed losses exceeding $3.6 million, and diverted assets for personal use.

Under Section 706(a) of the New York Business Corporation Law (“BCL”), a director may be removed for cause either by shareholder vote or, where authorized by shareholder-adopted bylaws, by action of the board. In addition, where a corporation’s governing bylaws leave “cause” undefined, the board retains broad discretion to determine whether sufficient grounds for removal exist, subject to the business judgment rule.

Implied‑in‑fact contracts under New York law arise from conduct rather than explicit agreement, requiring objective evidence of mutual assent, definite terms, and an intent to be bound. They are fully enforceable but subject to important limitations, including the preclusive effect of governing express contracts.

Mechanics’ liens are powerful tools available to, inter alia, contractors, laborers, and materialmen when they are not paid for their work in improving real property.

In Rubin v. Hodes, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of fraud and loan repayment claims brought by a former majority shareholder of a healthcare company. However, the courts never reached the merits of those claims because the plaintiff failed to disclose his stock interests and promissory notes in a prior bankruptcy proceeding.

Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation-Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”)[1], which, inter alia, “allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are “‘united in interest.’”

Under New York law, alter ego liability, often referred to as piercing the corporate veil, is a doctrine that permits a court to disregard the corporate form and hold an individual officer, director, or owner liable where that person exercised domination and control over the entity and used that domination and control to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the plaintiff.

Merger clauses and the duplication of claims doctrine often operate to limit the availability of fraudulent inducement claims alongside breach of contract claims.

When a court issues a decision and order that is self-effectuating, nothing further from the parties is required. Sometimes, however, a court’s decision will direct that the prevailing party either: (a) submit an order or judgment for the court to consider; or, (b) submit or settle an order or judgment, on notice, for the court’s consideration.

Contract interpretation principles require courts to give effect to the parties’ intent as expressed in the plain language of their agreement, while reading the contract as a whole and avoiding constructions that render provisions meaningless.

In today’s article, we examine Kingdom Assoc., Inc. v. WBC Servs. Inc., 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03070 (1st Dept. May 14, 2026), a case arising from a proposed subcontract for excavation and foundation work on a New York City project.

CPLR 3215(c) mandates dismissal of a complaint as abandoned if a plaintiff fails to take proceedings for a default judgment within one year of a defendant’s default, unless “sufficient cause” (a reasonable excuse and potentially meritorious claim) is shown. Recent cases clarify what qualifies as “taking proceedings.”

New York’s Limited Liability Company Law § 607 limits the remedies available to a creditor when the judgment debtor is an LLC member, confining recovery to the member’s economic interest and prohibiting any direct interference with LLC property. As demonstrated in Finance Holding Co., LLC v. Farzam, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 31868(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Apr. 7, 2026), courts use the statute to protect the separation between the LLC and its members.

Affinity fraud is a form of financial fraud that relies on social connections and trust. It most often occurs within identifiable groups, such as religious, cultural, or ethnic communities, or social organizations, where members share common values, experiences, or identities. Rather than approaching targets as strangers, those promoting the scheme position themselves as insiders, using familiarity and perceived credibility to create comfort and reduce skepticism.

Mechanics’ liens are powerful tools available to, inter alia, contractors, laborers and materialmen when they are not paid for their work in improving real property.

In Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. TPG Capital Mgt., L.P., 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 02775 (1st Dept. May 5, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, examined the limits of fraud claims arising from complex private‑equity financing transactions.