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
Commercial loan documents are notoriously complex, packed with financial reporting requirements, compliance covenants, and collateral maintenance obligations. For practitioners seeking the expedited relief of CPLR 3213’s summary judgment in lieu of complaint procedure, a critical question emerges: do these additional obligations disqualify the instruments from streamlined treatment? In a recent decision, the New York County Commercial Division provided much-needed clarity on when ancillary provisions actually matter.
Section 3213 of the CPLR allows plaintiffs to move for summary judgment in lieu of complaint when an action is based on “an instrument for the payment of money only.” This expedited procedure bypasses the traditional pleading phase, but courts have long struggled with defining exactly what constitutes such an instrument.
The Court of Appeals established the foundational principle in Weissman v. Sinorm Deli, Inc., holding that “[w]here the instrument requires something in addition to defendant’s explicit promise to pay a sum of money, CPLR 3213 is unavailable.” However, this broad language can leave practitioners uncertain about the countless ancillary provisions that populate modern commercial lending documents.
In PFNGT LLC v. Liquid Capital LLC, Index No. 654595/2024, decided April 28, 2025, plaintiff PFNGT sought nearly $4 million under a secured promissory note, loan agreement, and related guaranty. The defendants—borrower Liquid Capital LLC, guarantor Riccardo Spagni, and pledgor Wyoming Trust—mounted a sophisticated defense, arguing that the loan documents contained extensive non-payment obligations that disqualified them from CPLR 3213 treatment.Continue Reading When Additional Obligations Don’t Derail CPLR 3213: Commercial Division Clarifies the Test
On April 29, 2025, the Justice Robert R. Reed of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of New York County issued a significant ruling in ACM MCC VI LLC v. Able Liquidation Three, Thomas Rossi, et al., granting a default judgment on liability against defendant Thomas Rossi in a commercial dispute after two
On April 23, 2025, Matt Donovan and Viktoriya Liberchuk moderated a panel featuring Westchester Commercial Division Justices Linda S. Jamieson and Gretchen Walsh. The “town-hall” event covered a wide range of topics, including motion practice, artificial intelligence in legal proceedings, alternative dispute resolution, and trial procedures, to name just a few.
Below are some of
As readers of this blog are well aware, we here at New York Commercial Division Practice take great pride in posting about proposed or amended rules of practice in the Commercial Division. Knowledge of the local rules is particularly relevant when filing documents. One recent local rule change that may catch our readers’ eyes is Nassau County Supreme Court’s new procedures for filing an order to show cause .
Litigants generally have two options when bringing a motion before a court in New York State: (i) a motion on notice; or (ii) a motion brought by order to show cause. An order to show cause is typically used for emergency applications or when a litigant is seeking some form of immediate relief, such as a stay or temporary restraining order. As part of an application for an order to show cause, a party’s attorney must submit an affirmation under 22 NYCRR § 202.7(f), which provides that the opposing party has been given notice of the date, place, and time that the application will be filed with the court in order to appear in response to the application. This is where things get interesting.Continue Reading A Good Lawyer Knows the Law; A Great Lawyer Also Knows the Local Rules