Earlier this year, my colleague, Madeline Greenblatt, wrote about the emergence of a new body of case law emanating from the myriad effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the real estate industry. In her blog, Madeline discussed a recent decision from the Manhattan Commercial Division (Borrok, J.), rejecting a commercial tenant’s argument
We all hoped ringing in the New Year would mean leaving some of the hardships from the COVID-19 pandemic behind in 2020. However, in just two short months, businesses struggling with rent and other financial obligations due to COVID-19 restrictions are getting little to no relief from the Commercial Division. 
You first read Madeline Greenblatt’s
COVID-19 continues to generate litigation in a variety of contexts in the Commercial Division. Only two weeks ago did our colleague Madeline Greenblatt author a blog about COVID-19 not excusing commercial rental obligations. Now, in what appears to be a case of first impression in New York at least, Justice Timothy S. Driscoll ruled in
The lingerie brand Victoria’s Secret (“VS”) has struggled in recent years. VS’ overtly sexy aesthetic has failed to keep up with shifting consumer tastes towards comfort and gender and size inclusivity. In 2019, VS canceled its marquee fashion show, which had run annually for 23 years, showcasing supermodels in VS’ trademark angel wings strutting the
As
New York courts reopen and the mandatory stay-at-home order is lifted, what remains unclear is how the numerous Executive Orders issued by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo during the COVID-19 pandemic will affect individuals and businesses who, based on the economic effects of the crisis, may no longer be able to abide by previously issued
The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread impact on litigation, with some courts and most cases coming to a screeching halt. Some courts have responded with Orders or rules (Massachusetts Sup. Jud. Ct. Order OE-144 [March 20, 2020]; Wisconsin S. Ct. Order [March 25, 2020]; Florida S. Ct., No. AOSC20-16 [March 18, 2020]), while others have
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.
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
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