Arbitration can be an attractive alternative to the courtroom for any number of reasons. But practitioners should know that arbitration is not the courtroom; parties must be prepared to accept the final award of an arbitrator, even if a court would decide the case differently. As reiterated in the Manhattan Commercial Division’s recent decision, Light
On June 18, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok of the Manhattan Commercial Division issued a post-trial decision in IGC 444 Park LLC et al. v. 444 PAS Restaurant Associates LLC et al., finding individual defendant David Moinian (“Moinian”) personally liable for defamation per se. The ruling arose from statements Moinian made accusing IGC 444 of taking kick-backs, an allegation the court found to be both false and damaging to IGC 444’s professional reputation.
Background
On July 16, 2017, plaintiff IGC 444 Park LLC (“IGC 444”) entered into a management agreement with defendant 444 PAS Restaurant Associates LLC (“444 PAS”) to operate food and beverage services at the Mondrian Park Avenue Hotel. David Moinian signed the agreement as managing member of 444 PAS.
Under the agreement, 444 PAS was obligated to, inter alia, maintain a $150,000 working capital account, sign and submit any checks and invoices prepared by IGC 444 for payment of expenses related to food and beverage operations, and pay a management fee to IGC 444.
On January 21, 2019, IGC 444 issued a notice of default to 444 PAS and Moinian, alleging repeated breaches of the management agreement, including failure to pay invoices, maintain the working capital balance, and pay management fees. When 444 PAS failed to cure these breaches, IGC 444 filed suit, asserting various causes of action, including breach of the management agreement and defamation against Moinian, both individually and in his capacity as managing member of 444 PAS.Continue Reading Defamation in Business Disputes: Executive Held Personally Liable for False Kick-Back Accusation
Consistent with the Commercial Division Advisory Council’s (“Advisory Council”) mission – i.e., to ensure that the Commercial Division serves as a globally-recognized forum for the adjudication of complex commercial disputes – the Council this summer proposed to amend the Commercial Division Rules (22 NYCRR § 202.70) to clarify the types of insurance-coverage
The enforceability of non-compete agreements remains an active issue in New York courts, and a recent Queens County Commercial Division case, Cabrita v. Vitabyte, Inc., offers a good example of how judges can be willing to rein in aggressive enforcement tactics while still leaving restrictive covenants intact.
Background
The Commercial Division Advisory Council (“CDAC”) has recommended a new rule that would introduce the use of Virtual Evidence Courtrooms in the Commercial Division. The proposed Rule 25-a is now under review by the Administrative Board of the Courts (the “Board”). If adopted, the rule would mark another step towards the Commercial Division’s ongoing efforts
The Commercial Division Advisory Council (“Advisory Council”) is consistently looking to implement and amend new rules to enhance practice in the Commercial Division. On June 11, 2025, the Advisory Council proposed adding a new Rule 6(e) to the Rules of the Commercial Division. The proposed Rule 6(e) governs the use of generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”)
When litigants pursue claims against foreign defendants, the question of how to serve them is more than procedural – it’s jurisdictional. As many readers of this blog are aware, CPLR 308 authorizes alternate service methods when traditional methods are shown to be impracticable. A recent decision from Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Margaret A. Chan confirms
A recent decision from the Manhattan Commercial Division reminds us that even substantial and high-profile transactions tied to the state may not be enough to establish personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. In Zeng v HH Fairchild Holdings, LLC, the court held that a multimillion-dollar sale of surgical gowns to the City of New York during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic was not enough to maintain a breach of contract lawsuit in New York. In short, without a strong legal nexus to the state, long-arm jurisdiction will not reach as far as some plaintiffs might hope.
In Zeng, an out-of-state plaintiff—who had contracted to assist a New Hampshire limited liability company (the “NH Company”) in securing personal protective equipment (PPE) manufactured in China—brought a breach of contract suit against NH Company in New York. The PPE, consisting of 10 million surgical gowns, was ultimately sold by the NH Company to the City of New York. The NH Company moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute.Continue Reading Out-of-State, Out of Luck: Commercial Division Justice Dismisses PPE Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction
Under Rule 37 of the Rules of the Commercial Division, the court may order a remote deposition upon (1) consent of the parties, or upon (2) a motion showing good cause.
In spite of the increasing reliance on remote depositions in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a recent decision from Justice Robert R.
In a recent decision from the Manhattan County Commercial Division, Justice Margaret A. Chan addressed a confluence of corporate-governance, fiduciary-duty, and bankruptcy-stay issues in Ragab v. SHR Capital Partners LLC. The ruling offers instructive guidance on two legal themes; the limits of the automatic bankruptcy stay in litigation, and the viability of fiduciary-duty claims against individual directors.
Background
Hassan Ragab, founder and former CEO of SHR Capital Partners (“SHR”) filed suit against SHR and its board members, alleging that after his termination, they manipulated the valuation process to prevent his equity from vesting, among other things. According to the Plaintiff, this was not just a matter of contract but also a clear fiduciary-duty claim based on bad faith. SHR filed for bankruptcy during litigation, which complicated matters, but Hassan wished to proceed with claims against the individual board members.
Justice Margaret Chan’s March 2025 ruling allowed the litigation to proceed against the individual directors. This offers an important message for commercial litigators: bankruptcy won’t save your directors, and equity-based disputes may survive as fiduciary-duty claims when driven by alleged bad faith.
Key Takeaways for Practitioners – No Shield for Individual Board Members
Justice Chan disagreed with SHR’s claim that the bankruptcy stay protected the individual defendants, stating that the stay “applies only to SHR and does not extend to the individual defendants, who are not debtors in the bankruptcy proceeding. Because plaintiffs’ claims against the individual defendants do not involve SHR’s property or seek to impose liability on the debtor, the stay does not bar the proposed amendments.” Continue Reading Bankruptcy, Board Conduct, and Fiduciary Duty: Key Takeaways from Ragab v. SHR Capital Partners LLC