Category: Civil Procedure

The Commercial Division’s decision in Magnetic Parts Trading Limited v. National Air Cargo Group, Inc[1] demonstrates the flexibility and leniency courts embody when adjudicating motions to amend pleadings. In Magnetic Parts, New York County Supreme Court Justice Robert R. Reed granted National Airlines Cargo Group’s (National Airlines) motion for leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims against Magnetic Parts Trading Limited (Magnetic Parts) and denied Magnetic Parts’ motion to impose sanctions.

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). 

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.

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. 

On November 12, 2019, in BEC Capital, LLC et al. v. Bistrovic et al., 177 A.D.3d 438 (1st Dep’t 2019), the Appellate Division, the First Department issued a decision reversing an order of the Commercial Division and holding that the Defendants’ source code is a trade secret, and therefore should have been ordered to be produced under an “attorneys and expert eyes only” form of review.  The First Department also held that an email produced prior to the litigation was not subject to privilege from defamation and thus could support Defendants’ counter-claim for defamation.

The Commercial Division regularly hears suits involving foreign parties, in part because contract parties, anywhere in the world, can choose to have a dispute heard by the Commercial Division as long as the transaction at issue concerns $1 million or more. However, the Commercial Division’s rules sometimes provide for more extensive discovery than would be allowed in a foreign party’s home country.  And in some instances, the Commercial Division’s rules may even provide for discovery that would be illegal in the foreign party’s home country.  Justice Andrew Borrok’s recent decision in Starr Russia Investments III B.V. v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd. provides an illustration of how the Commercial Division may navigate this thorny issue.

On Wednesday June 5, 2019, all eight of the New York County Commercial Division justices participated on a panel for the New York State Bar Association’s Commercial and Federal Litigation Section on “Motion Practice Before the Commercial Division.”  Motion practice is one of the most frequently used aspects of practice in the Commercial Division.  The format was an informal question and answer session on motion practice, moderated by the Section’s Past Chair, Robert Holtzman.

Beginning in April 2019, the First Department has changed its practice to assign panels of four justices for oral argument, as opposed to five justices as has been the traditional practice of the court.  This change is the result of three ongoing vacancies on the First Department that have remained unfilled by Governor Cuomo.  The Presiding Justice of the First Department, Hon. Rolando Acosta, explained that the move to four justice panels is necessary because there are not enough judges to hear all the pending appeals.  Aware that four justice panels could create a two-to-two split, Presiding Justice Acosta explained that a fifth judge can be brought in to issue a decision if needed.  Parties can preserve their right to reargue or submit the case to a fifth justice by making a statement on the oral argument record.  This change will likely remain in place until new judges are appointed to the court. 

In 2017, the New York legislature amended CPLR 503(a) to provide for venue in “[(1)] the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced; [(2)] the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or, [(3)] if none of the parties then resided in the state, in any county designated by the plaintiff.”   Before the amendment, CPLR 503(a) did not provide for venue based on where the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Attorneys drafting forum selection clauses were reminded of the distinction between permissive and mandatory forum language in Justice Andrea Masley’s recent decision, Duncan-Watt et al. v. Rockefeller et al., No. 655538/2016, 2018 BL 138448 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Apr. 13, 2018). In Duncan-Watt, the Commercial Division ruled on Defendants’ motion to dismiss by holding that the dispute resolution clause in the parties’ licensing agreement failed to select Australian courts as the exclusive forum in which to litigate any disputes.  As a result, the Court concluded that the contractual language at issue only reflected the parties’ consent to jurisdiction in Australia—not that the dispute had to be litigated there.[1]

On August 25, 2017, Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of the New York Commercial Division entered an order reprimanding a high-profile lawyer, Mark Geragos, for misconduct during a deposition, including refusing to answer questions in violation of the court’s explicit instructions.  Gottwald v. Sebert, No. 653118/2014, 2017 BL 303419 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 25, 2017).

Justice Anil Singh of the New York Commercial Division recently issued two decisions related to the long-running litigation between Russian businessmen Alexander Gliklad and Michael Cherney.  Gliklad v. Deripaska, No. 652641/2015, 2017 BL 137121 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 25, 2017); Moquinon Ltd. v. Gliklad, No. 650366/2017, 2017 BL 137162 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 6, 2017).  Both decisions dealt setbacks to Gliklad’s ability to collect after winning a $385 million judgment.