Freiberger Haber LLP

Freiberger Haber LLP Located in New York City and Melville, Long Island, Freiberger Haber LLP represents corporations, sma

Freiberger Haber LLP represents businesses and individuals in commercial disputes, and individuals in whistleblower litigation.

In today’s article, we examine how much a subcontractor can recover under a mechanics’ lien in New York. Mechanics’ lien...
06/05/2026

In today’s article, we examine how much a subcontractor can recover under a mechanics’ lien in New York. Mechanics’ liens protect those who improve property by allowing recovery for unpaid labor or materials. However, a subcontractor’s recovery is limited to the “lien fund”—the amount still owed by the owner to the general contractor when the lien is filed. Subcontractors’ rights are derivative of the general contractor’s rights and cannot exceed unpaid contract amounts. For lower-tier subcontractors, recovery is further limited by all upstream obligations. A recent case (Layout, Inc. v. Heavy Metal Corp.) highlights that recovery depends on proving available unpaid funds.

Our discussion of Layout, Inc. v. Heavy Metal Corp. can be found by clicking the following link:

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 ...
06/01/2026

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. The plaintiff alleged that he had been misled about the value of his ownership interests and that promissory notes remained unpaid. However, the courts never reached the merits of those claims. Instead, the action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to disclose his stock interests and promissory notes in a prior Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. The Court held that undisclosed assets and causes of action remain property of the bankruptcy estate and that a debtor who fails to disclose them lacks the legal capacity to pursue related claims later.

Our discussion of Rubin v. Hodes can be found by clicking the following link:

This link will take you to a page that’s not on LinkedIn

Today’s article examines New York’s relation back doctrine, which permits a plaintiff to add a new party or claim after ...
05/29/2026

Today’s article examines New York’s relation back doctrine, which permits a plaintiff to add a new party or claim after the statute of limitations has expired if three conditions are met: the claims arise from the same transaction, the new party is “united in interest” with the original defendant (so it had notice), and the omission was due to a mistake. Applying this rule, the Second Department allowed a lender to add a corporation to a foreclosure action years later because it was owned by the original borrower and suffered no prejudice. The doctrine reflects a policy favoring resolution on the merits over procedural technicalities.

Our discussion of BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP v. MacPherson can be found by clicking the following link:

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 a...

Under New York law, alter ego liability, often referred to as piercing the corporate veil, is a doctrine that permits a ...
05/27/2026

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. Courts emphasize that mere domination or control is insufficient; instead, a plaintiff must plead particularized facts demonstrating a misuse of the corporate form, reflecting New York’s strong presumption against disregarding corporate separateness. Against this backdrop, in Soleil Chartered Bank v. Breton Equity Co. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03280 (1st Dept. May 26, 2026), the subject of today's article, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed dismissal of alter ego claims where the complaint relied on conclusory, information and belief, allegations of domination and failed to connect any alleged misuse of the corporate entity to a fraud or other cognizable wrong, reinforcing the heavy pleading burden required to sustain veil piercing claims in New York.

Our discussion of Soleil Chartered Bank v. Breton Equity Co. Corp. can be found by clicking the following link:

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 dom...

Merger clauses and the duplication of claims doctrine often operate to limit the availability of fraudulent inducement c...
05/25/2026

Merger clauses and the duplication of claims doctrine often operate to limit the availability of fraudulent inducement claims alongside breach of contract claims. As a general matter, merger clauses are intended to preclude reliance on extrinsic representations, while the duplication of claims doctrine limits plaintiffs from recasting breach of contract claims as tort claims absent an independent legal duty. However, these doctrines are subject to important limitations: a merger clause will bar a fraudulent inducement claim only where it contains a sufficiently specific disclaimer of reliance on the particular misrepresentations at issue, and a fraud claim will not be deemed duplicative where it is predicated on misrepresentations of present fact collateral to the contract and implicating a distinct legal wrong.

Against this backdrop, today, we examine the Appellate Division, First Department’s decision in CSN Realty Corp. v. Moussaieff, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03228 (1st Dept. May 21, 2026).

Our discussion of CSN Realty Corp. v. Moussaieff. can be found by clicking the following link:

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

In today’s article, we examine when parties must submit or “settle” an order under 22 NYCRR 202.48. If a court directs s...
05/22/2026

In today’s article, we examine when parties must submit or “settle” an order under 22 NYCRR 202.48. If a court directs submission or settlement on notice, the prevailing party must “settle” within 60 days or risk abandonment of the motion. If a litigant is directed to “submit” an order on notice to the opposing party is required. The strict enforcement of this deadline may be excused for “good cause”. Crucially, the rule does not apply unless the court explicitly directs submission or settlement on notice, as reaffirmed in Rosenberg v. Tool Time Construction Corp.

Our discussion of Rosenberg v. Tool Time Construction Corp. can be found by clicking the following link:

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 jud...

Contract interpretation principles require courts to give effect to the parties’ intent as expressed in the plain langua...
05/20/2026

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. Where contractual terms introduce discretion or conditional performance, such as provisions allowing one party to determine whether services will be requested, questions of ambiguity may arise concerning the scope of the parties’ obligations. In such circumstances, courts often consider whether the agreement reflects a performance-based bargain or a broader allocation of risk and responsibility. These principles are illustrated in Prosight Specialty Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Altruis Group, LLC, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03131 (1st Dept. May 19, 2026), a case concerning the interpretation of a services agreement and whether its discretionary language limited the provider’s obligations or affected its entitlement to compensation.

Our discussion of Prosight Specialty Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Altruis Group, LLC can be found by clicking the following link:

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...
05/18/2026

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. Plaintiff alleged that defendant accepted its $8.28 million proposal and that it procured materials, obtained insurance, and prepared shop drawings in reliance thereon. Defendant argued that no binding contract existed because the proposal was never executed and required owner approval. After defendant stated the owner had not authorized the work, plaintiff filed a $1.075 million mechanic's lien and sued. The Appellate Division, First Department held that plaintiff adequately stated claims for, among others, breach of contract and promissory estoppel, reversing the motion court’s dismissal of the causes of action.

Our discussion of Kingdom Assoc., Inc. v. WBC Servs. Inc. can be found by clicking the following link:

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 judgm...
05/15/2026

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.” While filing an RJI for a foreclosure settlement conference may suffice if such a conference is required by statute, in U.S. Bank v. Islam (2026), it did not, because the borrower did not reside at the premises being foreclosed and, therefore, no conference was “required.” Therefore, the case was dismissed as abandoned.

Our discussion of U.S. Bank N. A. v. Islam can be found by clicking the following link:

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 ...

New York’s Limited Liability Company Law § 607 limits the remedies available to a creditor when the judgment debtor is a...
05/13/2026

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), the subject of today's article, courts use the statute to protect the separation between the LLC and its members.

Our discussion of Finance Holding Co., LLC v. Farzam can be found by clicking the following link:

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. Fa...

Address

425 Broadhollow Road Suite 416
Melville, NY
11747

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+16312828985

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Freiberger Haber LLP posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Freiberger Haber LLP:

Shortcuts

Share

Category