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
Business Corporation Law § 619 (“BCL”) gives shareholders an “exclusive method . . . to test the validity of an election of a director.” Specifically, BCL § 619 states:
“Upon the petition of any shareholder aggrieved by an election, and upon notice to the persons declared elected thereat, the corporation and such other persons as the court may direct, the supreme court at a special term held within the judicial district where the office of the corporation is located shall forthwith hear the proofs and allegations of the parties, and confirm the election, order a new election, or take such other action as justice may require”
But under what circumstances can a court reverse an election? And what factors does a court consider? The case of Jazwinski v Justice Ct. Mut. Hous. Coop. is illustrative on these questions.Continue Reading It’s Time to CO-OPerate: Commercial Division Refuses to Overturn Election of Board of Directors
On March 4, 2025, the New York County Lawyers Association (“NYCLA”) celebrated a significant milestone during its Annual Gala held at The Pierre Hotel in Manhattan. The event commemorated the 30th Anniversary of the Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court.
At the Gala, the NYCLA presented its highest honor – the William Nelson Cromwell Award, which was first established in 1964. This prestigious award is conferred upon individuals who have demonstrated exceptional commitment to public service. This award is named in honor of William Nelson Cromwell, one of NYCLA’s earliest and most esteemed leaders, for “unselfish service to the profession and the community.”
At the Gala, the award was presented to the Commercial Division Justices in New York State. Among those present to accept the honor were Commercial Division Justices from across New York State, including Justice Boddie of the Brooklyn Commercial Division, Justice Driscoll of the Nassau County Commercial Division, Justices Chan, Masley, and Reed of the Manhattan Commercial Division, and Justice Jamieson of the Westchester County Commercial Division.Continue Reading A Court that Means Business: Three Decades of the New York Commercial Division
In a recent decision, the New York County Commercial Division reaffirmed the high bar that parties must meet when attempting to seal court documents in business disputes. In Linkable Networks, Inc. v. Mastercard Inc., the court ruled that Mastercard, despite having the consent of the plaintiff, was not entitled to an order sealing documents referenced in prior motion practice and produced in discovery. This ruling is another reminder of the high bar courts have set to seal documents, as discussed by my colleague Serene Carino in her blog post “Signed, Seal, Delivered.” It also highlights the balance courts strike between protecting sensitive business information and upholding the public’s right to access judicial records.
Under Section 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, a court may seal or redact court records only upon a written finding of “good cause.” The rule stipulates that such an order must specify the grounds for sealing and take into account both the interests of the parties involved and the public’s right to transparency. In the business context, courts are more willing to seal records when trade secrets or competitive advantages are at risk.Continue Reading Commercial Division Clarifies Standards for Sealing Court Records in Business Disputes
Under CPLR 3213, a plaintiff can move for summary judgment in lieu of complaint which, under the right circumstances, serves as a useful tool to avoid extensive litigation and obtain speedy relief. Recently, in JADR Consulting Group Pty Ltd. v Ault Alliance, Inc., some loan sharks attempted to take advantage of the device’s efficiency.
Regular visitors to this blog no doubt are aware that the rules of practice for the Commercial Division are centered on innovation, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and predictability. This includes the rules governing trial and trial preparation (Rules 25-33), which are important enough to merit their own, separate Preamble.
As it stands, the Preamble to Rules 25-33
Frequent readers of this blog know that we are not shy in acknowledging the Commercial Division’s status as the leading forum for resolving complex business disputes. This reputation can be, in part, largely attributed to the ongoing efforts of the Commercial Division Advisory Council, which continually assesses and suggests practical, significant modifications to the Commercial
Although discretionary, it is well-known among commercial practitioners that the Commercial Division justices generally like a Rule 19-a statement of material facts included with the submission of a summary judgment motion. When responding to a Rule 19-a statement, the responding party should be thinking a couple moves ahead. The ultimate goal should be to make
As recently highlighted by my colleagues, the Commercial Division Advisory Council (“Advisory Council”) has been hard at work striving to implement and amend certain rules and regulations to enhance practice in the Commercial Division. One recent proposal that may catch practitioners’ eyes is the potential addition of Commercial Division Rule 23: a rule designed to