Categories & Search

Commercial Division Enforces Forum-Selection Clause

Can the purchasers of promissory notes containing non-New York forum-selection clauses enforce the notes in the Commercial Division?  Not without an extraordinary showing as to why the clauses should be set aside, according to Commercial Division Justice Elizabeth Emerson’s recent decision in Stein v. United Wind, Inc.  In Stein, Justice Emerson granted a motion to dismiss an action to enforce promissory notes where the notes designated Delaware as the exclusive forum for any disputes arising in connection with the notes. 

Go

CDAC Rule Proposal to Loosen Requirements To Become A Neutral Evaluator Still Pending

On December 4, 2020, the Administrative Board of the Courts sought public comment on the Commercial Division Advisory Council’s (“CDAC”) proposed amendment to Commercial Division Rule 3(a), 22 NYCRR § 202.70(g). The current language of Rule 3 permits the court to direct, or for counsel to seek, the appointment of an uncompensated mediator for the purpose of mediating a resolution of all or some issues presented in the litigation  The CDAC’s Rule 3(a) proposal would “permit the use of neutral evaluation as an [alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”)] mechanism and to allow for the inclusion of neutral evaluators in rosters of court-approved neutrals.”  Currently, under Part 146 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, “neutral evaluation” is “a confidential, non-binding process in which a neutral third party (the neutral evaluator) with expertise in the subject matter relating to the dispute provides an assessment of likely court outcomes of a case or an issue in an effort to help parties reach a settlement.”  The Chief Administrative Judge’s rules already set forth the training prerequisites to become a neutral evaluator.

Go

First Department Clarifies Circumstances Under Which Acknowledgment of a Debt Will Toll Limitations Period for Action to Recover on a Promissory Note

In Hawk Mountain LLC v. RAM Capital Group LLC, the First Department held that, under New York General Obligations Law (“G.O.L.”) § 17-101, an acknowledgment of a debt tolled the limitations period for an action to recover a debt owed on a promissory note, even though the acknowledgment did not specifically mention the note at issue or the precise amount due on the note. This decision clarifies that “there is no requirement that an acknowledgement of a debt pursuant to [G.O.L.] § 17–101 leave no room for doubt as to the nature and quantum of the debt to be acknowledged.”

Go

Commercial Division Declines to Dismiss Breach of Contract Action Involving Conditions Precedent  

In a recent decision in SL Globetrotter L.P., Global Blue Group Holding AG v. Suvretta Capital Management, LLC, Toms Capital Investment Management LP, Justice Peter Sherwood declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, which arose out of a dispute over investment, through a special purpose acquisition vehicle (“SPAC”), in a new public company.[1]  The opinion sheds light on the interpretation of conditions precedent in a contract, particularly when they deal with the consistency of relevant financial information.

Go

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

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.

Go

Commercial Division Dismisses Commercial Tenant’s Complaint Seeking to Rescind or Terminate Lease and Avoid Rent Obligations

Recently, in Valentino U.S.A., Inc. v. 693 Fifth Owner LLC, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division dismissed a complaint brought by Valentino U.S.A., Inc. (“Valentino” or “Tenant”), which sought to rescind or terminate the commercial lease for its Manhattan luxury fashion store and to avoid its rent obligation.

Go

New York State Unified Court System Issues Protocols and Procedures for Virtual Bench Trials

On February 11, 2021, the New York State Unified Court System issued Virtual Bench Trial Protocols and Procedures (“Protocols and Procedures”) in light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.  While “Virtual Bench Trials are, in all respects, identical to In-Person Courtroom Bench Trials[,]….certain modifications are necessary regarding the presentation of testimonial, documentary, and physical evidence in order to safeguard accuracy and ensure reliability.”

Go

Judges Chan and Crane Are Assigned as New Commercial Division Judges

Hon. Margaret Anne Pui Yee Chan and Hon. Melissa A. Crane have been assigned to the Commercial Division of Supreme Court, New York County.

Judge Chan’s assignment to the Commercial Division follows an eight-year stint as an Acting Supreme Court Justice in the Civil Term for New York County, beginning in 2013.  Prior to her designation to the Supreme Court, Judge Chan had served as a Civil Court Judge in New York County, where she began her judicial career in 2007.

Go

Stay Up to Date on Recent Changes to New York’s Commercial Division Rules – CLE Held on Division Rules Changes and Application of Commercial Rules to Other Court Parts

A CLE was recently presented by the Columbian Lawyers Association of the First Department on February 3, 2021 to offer guidance on the latest rule changes affecting the New York State Courts and the Commercial Division in particular.  At that program, Commercial Division Blog editor Stephen P. Younger of Patterson Belknap, along with Rosanne E. Felicello, Michael James Maloney, and Kristie Blase of Felicello Law P.C., gave guidance to judges and litigators who focus on commercial disputes, as well as many who practice in other court parts.

Go

Commercial Division Finds Movie Theater Not Entitled to Business Interruption Coverage for COVID-19 Closures

Last summer, we wrote about two principles of New York law that could provide a path to insurance coverage for businesses hit hard by the economic losses resulting from Governor Cuomo’s COVID-19-related shutdown orders.  Although we noted that businesses seeking such coverage would likely face an uphill battle, we proposed that recovery under certain business interruption policies might be available in New York because: 1) an insurable loss of use occurred even without physical damage to the covered property; and/or 2) the policy’s “civil authority” clause extended to closures resulting from Governor Cuomo’s orders.

Go

Second Department Limits Plaintiff to Appraisal Remedy Under New York LLC Law After a Freeze-out Merger

In Farro v. Schochet, the Second Department recently held that §1002 of the NY LLC Law restricted a dissenting member’s remedy to an appraisal for the fair value of his interest in the business after a freeze-out merger.  Thus, the Court reduced the legal remedies for a minority LLC member that lacked protections in the operating agreement against the merger.

Go

Commercial Division Rules Expanded to General Civil Practice in New York Effective February 1, 2021

Administrative Order 270/2020—which adopts certain Commercial Division Rules into the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court in New York—went into effect on February 1, 2021.  In signing this order, Chief Judge Marks described the Commercial Division as “an efficient, sophisticated, up-to-date court, dealing with challenging commercial cases” that “has had as its primary goal the cost-effective, predictable and fair adjudication of complex commercial cases[.]”  Further, he acknowledged the Commercial Division’s role in dealing with the “unique problems of commercial practice,” and praised its “function[] as an incubator, becoming a recognized leader in court system innovation, and demonstrating an unparalleled creativity and flexibility in development of rules and practices[.]”

Go

Changes to Commercial Division’s Pre-Trial Submission Rule

Good news for lawyers preparing for trial in New York’s Commercial Division—you can finally delete that old copy of WordPerfect.  An upcoming amendment to the rule governing pre-trial memoranda, exhibits, and requests to charge makes a few changes that trial-ready attorneys should note.

Go

Takeaways From 4 NY Virus-Related Tenant Contract Rulings

Over the past several months, many disputes have arisen over whether the COVID-19 pandemic or government responses to it provide, depending on the jurisdiction, an impossibility or impracticability defense for nonperformance under a contract. Now, we are beginning to see a flood of decisions addressing that defense.

Go

First Department Issues First Ruling Dismissing Securities Act Claims Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Cyan Decision

As New York commercial practitioners will recall, the U.S. Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Emps. Ret. Fund held that state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over class actions alleging violations of only the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”) and, further, that defendants in such suits filed in state court cannot remove those actions to federal court to avoid state-court jurisdiction.  Not surprisingly, this development has led to an increase in the filing of securities claims in state courts.

Go

Commercial Division Holds Personal Jurisdiction Is Not Proper Where Defendant’s Only Contact with New York Was Performance of Some Contracted Services at Plaintiff’s Request

In Black Diamond Aviation Group LLC v. Spirit Avionics, Ltd., the Commercial Division held that it would be inappropriate for a New York court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an aircraft maintenance and refurbishing company that had no presence or ties to New York other than turning over an aircraft to be serviced to the care of a New York airport at the plaintiff’s request.

Go

Court of Appeals Holds Bankruptcy Law Does Not Preempt Lender’s Tortious Interference Claims Against Third-Party Non-Debtors

In Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky, the New York Court of Appeals recently held in a 4-3 split decision that, under certain circumstances, bankruptcy law does not preempt a lender’s state law claims against third-party non-debtors for tortious interference with a contract between the lender and the debtor.  This decision preserves a state forum for lenders asserting claims that: 1) involved “wrongful conduct by non-debtor defendants that occurred prior to the bankruptcy proceeding,” and 2) are “grounded in independent contractual obligations."

Go

Commercial Division Denies Summary Judgment in a “Shotgun” Provision Matter

Recently, Justice Andrew Borrok of the Commercial Division denied a summary judgment motion in a dispute involving what is colloquially referred to as a “shotgun” or a “buy-sell” clause in agreements governing joint ventures and partnerships.  See Seokoh, Inc. v. Lard-PT, LLC, Index No. 650983/2020, 69 Misc. 3d 1207(A) (Sup. Ct., NY Cty. Oct. 20, 2020).

Go

Commercial Division Confirms Arbitration Award Entered Against Party Who Objected to the Jurisdiction of the Arbitrators but Failed to Seek a Stay of the Arbitration

In Fava v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, Inc., Justice Barry R. Ostrager of the New York County Commercial Division denied Petitioner Frank Fava’s (“Fava”) motion to vacate an arbitration award issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and granted Respondent Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, Inc’s (“Morgan Stanley”) request to confirm the award.  The opinion addresses whether a party who objects to an arbitration panel’s jurisdiction but participates in arbitration may vacate an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrators exceeded the scope of their authority.

Go

Two Court of Appeals Judges to Retire in 2021

Judge Leslie Stein and Judge Eugene Fahey were confirmed together and will retire together.  The two judges have been part of a group of judges who have cast the deciding votes in many of the Court’s cases.

Go

Commercial Division Opts for Money Damages in Lieu of Dissolution in Oppressed Shareholder Suit

New York Business Corporation Law § 1104-a empowers a holder of 20% or more of a closely held corporation’s stock to petition for that corporation’s dissolution on the grounds that, inter alia, the controlling shareholders have committed “illegal, fraudulent or oppressive actions toward the complaining shareholders.”

Go

Commercial Division Appoints Special Discovery Master In Lieu of Judicial Hearing Officer

In a recent order, Justice Andrea Masley assigned a special discovery master to supervise discovery in Hindlin v. Prescriptions Songs LLC, et al., a “complex commercial action” with a “multitude of discovery issues[.]” The decision underscores the constraints placed on the Commercial Division in light of the ongoing pandemic and cuts to the budget of the state’s judiciary.

Go

Justice Robert Reed Appointed to New York County Commercial Division

On Monday, just days after Justice Peter Sherwood and Justice Marcy Friedman announced their upcoming retirements from the bench, the Chief Administrative Judge announced the news that Justice Robert Reed—currently a New York Supreme Court Justice—will start receiving Commercial Division cases in the next few weeks. 

Go

Commercial Division Dismisses Petition to Dissolve LLCs Based on Broadly Stated Purpose Provision

In Lazar v. Attena LLC, Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division granted Arik Mor and Uriel Zichron’s (together, “Respondents”) motion to dismiss a petition to dissolve three limited liability companies, Attena LLC, Hemera LLC, and Nessa LLC (collectively, the “LLCs”).  The Court’s opinion addressed whether the LLCs should be dissolved on the ground that they were no longer functioning in accordance with their stated purpose, which was defined broadly to include “any lawful business purpose.”

Go

Rule 11-g Amended to Include “Attorneys Eyes Only” Designation

On September 23, 2020, Chief Administrative Judge Marks amended Commercial Division Rule 11-g and the Division’s Standard Form Confidentiality Order (SFO”) to allow parties to designate certain documents as highly confidential for attorneys eyes only (AEO”). Such a designation already exists in federal court, and it will be useful in the Commercial Division in matters involving particularly confidential issues such as the disclosure of confidential business information between competitors and disclosure of trade secrets.

Go

Rule 6 Amendment Increases the Font Size of Footnotes and Requires Hyperlinking to the NYSECF Docket

On September 29, 2020, Chief Administrative Judge Marks amended Commercial Division Rule 6 to increase the font size of footnotes in briefs and affidavits from 10-point to 12-point.  Additionally, it requires the use of a proportionally spaced serif typeface (e.g., Times New Roman, Baskerville, New Century Schoolbook) in all papers filed with the Court.  With Commercial Division Rule 17 establishing a word limit rather than a page limit, increasing the font size of footnotes will have no impact on the length of briefs.  Instead, a larger font size coupled with a proportionally spaced serif typeface will enhance readability and improve comprehension of long passages of text.

Go

Commercial Division Considers Effects of COVID Executive Orders on Use and Occupancy Payments for Real Estate

A recent ruling by the Kings County Commercial Division offers a glimpse into how courts in New York may resolve COVID-19-related disputes regarding leases and real property, as well as how courts may handle situations in which the Governor’s executive orders, intended to stem the spread of COVID-19, have affected the abilities of parties to follow court orders issued prior to the pandemic. 

Go

2 NY Contract Cases Highlight Limits Of Impossibility Defense

A common question in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak has been whether the pandemic or governmental responses to the pandemic provide, depending on the jurisdiction, an impossibility or impracticability defense for nonperformance under a contract.

The answer to that question will, of course, turn on the facts underlying the nonperformance, as well as the law of the jurisdiction. Two recent decisions from New York are instructive on the contours of the defense of impossibility — the relevant defense under New York law.

Go

NY Lenders May Face Barriers In Real Estate Dispositions

As the country entered into an extended period of lockdowns this spring, there was widespread concern that the anticipated severe economic impact of the pandemic would lead to a wave of defaults and foreclosures in the commercial real estate market.
 

Go

Commercial Division Declines to Dismiss Claim Seeking to Invalidate Delaware LLC Member’s Exercise of a Put Option Amidst Allegations of Anticipated Insolvency

In GMX Technologies, LLC v. Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P., Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division denied Defendants Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P. (“Pegasus”) and The Leiber Group Inc.’s (“Leiber”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss a claim for declaratory judgment seeking to bar Leiber from exercising a put option in connection with its membership interest in Plaintiff GMX Technologies, LLC (“GMX”).  The opinion addressed whether a Delaware LLC member may exercise a put option when doing so would force the LLC into insolvency.

Go

Commercial Division Renders a Split Decision on a Petition to Stay an Arbitration

Recently, the Commercial Division rendered a split decision on a petition to stay an arbitration in Gol v. TNJ Holdings, Inc., Index No. 652304/2020, Doc. No.  75 (Sup. Ct., NY Cnty. Aug. 13, 2020).  Based on an analysis of the relevant shareholder agreements and the positions taken by the parties in another litigation, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied the petition to stay arbitration as to the claims brought by the TNJ respondents, but granted the petition to stay arbitration as to the claims brought by the Kahlon respondents—the owners of TNJ.

Go

Commercial Division Sees Uptick, Followed by Flattening in Case Filings

The New York County Commercial Division saw a substantial increase in the number of new cases filed (i.e.,a total of 102 new cases) during the first four-week span after the New York courts re-opened for non-essential matters on May 25, 2020—as compared to both February 2020 (77 new cases), the last full month of filings prior to the crisis, and a comparable period between May 27 and June 23, 2019 (87 new cases).

Go

New Oral Argument Protocol at the First Department

On August 17, 2020, the Appellate Division, First Department announced that starting in the September term, and continuing until further notice, it will hold oral arguments both in-person at the courthouse and remotely via Microsoft Teams.  In-person oral arguments will be held on Wednesdays and remote oral arguments will be held on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. 

Go

The Commission to Reimagine the Future of New York’s Courts Releases Goals for Restarting in-Person Juries

In mid-June, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore appointed the Commission to Reimagine the Future of New York’s Courts, and charged it with examining technological, regulatory, and other long-term innovations for New York Courts.  Additionally, in the short-term, it was to provide recommendations for resuming in-person court operations amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Go

Second Department to Allow Virtual Option for Oral Arguments

Starting on September 8, 2020 and continuing indefinitely, litigants eligible for oral argument in the Second Department will be given the option of arguing in person, via Microsoft Teams, or submitting.  Notice must be sent to the court and other litigants no later than three days prior to the date on which the matter is calendared.  If there is a divergence of opinion among litigants, the court will determine how oral argument will be heard or whether the matter will be marked submitted.  Members of the public are still not permitted to attend oral argument at the courthouse.

Go

Commercial Division Holds that Reliance and Inducement are Not Required Elements of Unjust Enrichment

When the funds invested by one victim of a Ponzi scheme are used to pay the scheme’s debts to an earlier investor, can the later investor recover those funds from the earlier investor through an unjust enrichment claim?  Yes, if there is a sufficient connection between the parties, according to Commercial Division Justice Andrea Masley’s recent decision in JHAC LLC v. Advance Entertainment LLC.  In JHAC, Justice Masley allowed unjust enrichment claims by one Ponzi scheme victim against other victims to proceed by holding that reliance and inducement are not elements of unjust enrichment in New York.  All that is required to sustain the claim is a “connection” between the victims, and Justice Masley held that JHAC adequately pled such a connection.

Go

In a New York Debtor and Creditor Law Dispute, Commercial Division Clarifies Allegations Required to Pierce Corporate Veil

In a recent decision in South College Street, LLC v. Ares Capital Corporation, Justice Schechter of the New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division, dismissed petitioner’s New York Debtor and Creditor Law claims, which were premised on alter ego liability. The opinion addressed the types of allegations a plaintiff must make in order to successfully plead a veil-piercing claim.

Go

Appellate Division, First Department Expands Mandatory E-filing

The Appellate Division, First Department has expanded the categories of appeals subject to e-filing through the New York State Court Electronic Filing System (NYSCEF).  Effective July 27, 2020, e-filing is now mandatory for all matters originating in Supreme Court, Criminal Term; Family Court; Surrogate’s Court; and Court of Claims in Bronx and New York Counties.  With this expansion, e-filing is now mandatory for all matters before the First Department, except Original Special Proceedings and Attorney Matters.

The expansion applies to appeals that have already been perfected, and is required regardless of whether the matters were e-filed at trial level.  Attorneys in matters where notices of appeal have been filed are encouraged to immediately enter the initial information required for e-filing under 22 NYCRR § 1245.3.  There are separate 22 NYCRR § 1245.3. considerations for criminal and family matters with assigned counsel, and such practitioners should consult the notice to the bar.

Go

New York Court of Appeals Resumes In-person Filings

On July 22, 2020, the New York Court of Appeals announced that the Court of Appeals Hall in Albany is now open for in-person filings.  The Court will continue to accept mailed and electronic submissions as permitted by its rules.  Those seeking to file papers in person will be screened at the Court’s Eagle Street entrance before entering in accordance with New York’s COVID screening protocol.

Go

Justice Scarpulla Appointed to the Appellate Division, First Department

On July 13, 2020, Governor Cuomo appointed four Supreme Court Justices to fill vacancies on the Appellate Division, First Department.  The Governor elevated Justices Saliann Scarpulla, Manuel Jacobo Mendez Olivero, Martin Shulman and Tanya R. Kennedy, who represent the diversity of New York’s judicial system.

Go

Commercial Division Resolves Madoff-related Dispute Pursuant to LLC Law

The reverberations from the collapse of Bernie Madoff’s massive Ponzi scheme continue to be felt in Manhattan’s Commercial Division.  On May 20, 2020, Judge Joel M. Cohen issued a decision in Matter of FGLS Equity LLC, No. 157170/2019, 2020 WL 2557877, 2020 NY Slip Op 31476(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ctny., May 20, 2020), approving the liquidation plan of FGLS Equity LLC, which was founded by accountant Steven Mendelow as a feeder fund to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (BLMIS).  Mendelow, who passed away in 2016, was allegedly instrumental in funneling investors to the scheme.  The decision is notable, not least because it may be the first New York case in which a court has been asked to pass judgment on an LLC plan of liquidation proposed by a liquidator appointed by the LLC’s members pursuant to its operating agreement. 

Go

Business Interruption Recovery in New York—Two Cases Might Help

In the wake of punishing economic losses caused by Covid-19-related shutdown orders, business owners across New York have turned to their insurers for temporary relief in the form of business interruption coverage. If recent reports are any indication, however, New York businesses will face an uphill battle.

Go

Repeal of Rule 23: the 60-Day Rule

On June 23, 2020, Chief Administrative Judge Marks approved the repeal of Rule 23 of the Commercial Division Rules.  Rule 23 (known as the “60-Day Rule”) required movant’s counsel to notify the court and other parties whenever a motion had not been decided within 60 days of its submission or oral argument. 

Go

Virtual Court May Be the New Normal in New York City, At Least For Now

Although New York City’s state court judges are now back in their chambers, in-person hearings have not yet commenced. 

Administrative Judge Deborah A. Kaplan reported that her division has had success using “video-linked ‘virtual’ hearings for a wide range of matters.” In-person hearings will still be available when truly necessary.  For example, this option may be available to self-represented litigants without access to the requisite technology. 

Go

Chief Judge DiFiore Announces Expanded In-Person Court Services in Five Upstate Regions

On June 15, 2020, Chief Judge DiFiore announced that the five upstate regions—Finger Lakes, Central New York, Mohawk Valley, Southern Tier, and North Country—that began Phase III reopening last Friday, June 12, will expand the number of in-person functions in their courthouses beginning June 17. Accordingly, these regions will now handle in-person matters including a limited number of bench trials in civil matters.

Go

Amendment to Rule 1 Allowing Video Appearances

On June 16, 2020, Chief Administrative Judge Marks approved an amendment to Rule 1 to the Commercial Division Rules.  The amendment is designed to allow counsel to request the court’s permission to appear though videoconferencing and other similar technology.

Go

In a Valuation Dispute, Commercial Division Refuses to Credit “Unrealistic and Optimistic” Projections Made by a Corporation in Obtaining a Loan

A recent Commercial Division decision provides an example of a court rejecting “unrealistic and optimistic” business projections in determining the valuation of a petitioner’s shares in a corporation.  In Magarik v. Kraus USA, Inc., Index No. 606128/2015, Doc. No. 252 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cnty. Apr. 28, 2020), Justice DeStefano refused to credit the valuation made by the petitioner’s expert, which depended heavily on a set of projections that the corporation at issue made in the process of obtaining a loan.

Go