NY Commercial Division Blog

Patterson Belknap’s Commercial Division Blog covers developments related to practice and case law in the Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court. The Commercial Division was formed in 1993 to enhance the quality of judicial adjudication and to improve efficiency in the case management of commercial disputes that are litigated in New York State courts. Since then, the Division has become a leading venue for judicial resolution of high-stakes and every-day commercial disputes. This Blog reviews key developments in the Commercial Division, including important decisions handed down by the Commercial Division, appellate court decisions reviewing Commercial Division decisions, and changes and proposed changes to Commercial Division rules and practices. Our aim is to provide you with thoughtful and succinct analysis of these issues. The Blog is written by experienced commercial litigators who have substantial practices in the Commercial Division.

Court Considers Emails and Letters as “Documentary Evidence” in Dismissing Legal Malpractice Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7)

by Christopher Wilds and Jacqueline L. Bonneau on March 30, 2022

Citing “substantial documentary evidence” consisting of emails and letters, Justice Borrok of Manhattan’s Commercial Division concluded that a legal malpractice claim brought by former president of Universal Music Group’s (“UMG’s”) Republic Records, Charlie Walk was based on a “false narrative” and consequently dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7).

The Commercial Division Gets A New Corporate Disclosure Rule

by Christopher Wilds and Muhammad U. Faridi on December 16, 2021

Update: As an update to our earlier post on the Commercial Division’s new corporate disclosure rule—Rule 35 of the Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division—the rule is now in effect. As of December 1, 2021, corporate entities litigating or seeking to intervene in cases must submit statements disclosing any...

The Commercial Division Gets A New Corporate Disclosure Rule

by Christopher Wilds and Muhammad U. Faridi on October 7, 2021

On October 4, 2021, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks promulgated Rule 35 of the Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division to require corporate entities litigating or seeking to intervene in cases to submit statements disclosing any corporate parent or publicly held companies that are sufficiently invested in the party or proposed intervenor.

Commercial Division Holds Corporate Directors May Be Individually Liable When Informally Dissolved Company Forgoes Notice to Creditors

by Christopher Wilds and Muhammad U. Faridi on March 18, 2021

In Morse v. LoveLive TV US, Inc., a recent decision by Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division, the Court denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that where it is impossible or futile to obtain a judgment against a defunct corporation that has defaulted on debts by “informal dissolution,” creditors can maintain an action directly against the directors of that company.

Commercial Division Declines to Stay Securities Case in Deference to Later-Filed Federal Action

by Christopher Wilds on December 13, 2019

In Matter of GreenSky, Inc. Sec. Litig., Justice Jennifer G. Schecter of the Commercial Division denied defendants’ motion to stay the state court action pending resolution of a later-filed, federal action involving virtually identical claims made under the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”). Justice Schecter did grant defendants’ alternative request for a stay of discovery pending the court’s decision on their motion to dismiss. The court’s decision addressed: 1) whether state courts should stay 1933 Act cases in deference to federal cases involving similar claims; and 2) whether the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act”) requires a stay of discovery in state court pending the court’s decision on a motion to dismiss.

Commercial Division Prevents End-Run Around Rule Precluding Judicial Dissolution of Foreign Business Entities

by Christopher Wilds on August 6, 2019

In Matter of Raharney Capital, LLC v. Capital Stack LLC, the First Department held that New York courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over foreign company dissolution proceedings. Now, a recent Commercial Division decision rendered by Justice Saliann Scarpulla, Rosania v. Gluck, has clarified that the Raharney rule also applies to litigants’ attempts to obtain equitable relief associated with a judicial dissolution of a foreign business.

The Commercial Division Gets a New Rule on Technology-Assisted Review in Discovery

by Christopher Wilds and Muhammad U. Faridi on July 24, 2018

On July 19, 2018, Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts, Lawrence K. Marks, issued an administrative order promulgating a new subdivision of Rule 11-e of the Commercial Division Rules. Rule 11-e governs Responses and Objections to Document Requests, and the newly added subdivision specifically addresses the use of technology-assisted review in the discovery process.