On February 14, 2024, Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas signed an Administrative Order amending Section 202.70(b)(1) of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme and County Courts (Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court), and adding a new Rule 9-b to Section 202.70(g). But rather than vest the Commercial Division with new powers

Nonparty subpoenas are a useful discovery tool in commercial disputes. Particularly when the dispute involves access to or control over funds on deposit with a financial institution, the institution’s account statements, and transaction records may be critical. But stringent requirements are imposed on a party seeking disclosure from a nonparty. If the requesting party does not include sufficient detail in the subpoena to demonstrate its relevance to the pleadings, then its request might prove fruitless. A recent decision from Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Robert Reed in UKI Freedom LLC v Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, Inc. exemplifies such a shortfall.


Under CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain disclosure from a nonparty of “matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” When disclosure is sought from a nonparty, “more stringent requirements are imposed on the party seeking disclosure” (Velez v Hunts Point Multi-Serv. Ctr., Inc., 29 AD3d 104, 108 [1st Dept. 2006]). In practice, these “more stringent requirements” are fairly minimal, but the subpoenaing party must at least “sufficiently state the ‘circumstances or reasons’ underlying the subpoena” (Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 34 [2014]).

The nonparty, or another party to the action, may move to quash the subpoena but bears “the initial burden of establishing either that the requested disclosure is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Confino, 175 AD3d 533, 534-35 [2d Dept. 2019] [internal quotations omitted]). If the movant meets this burden, then the burden shifts to the subpoenaing party to “establish that the discovery sought is material and necessary to the prosecution of the action” (id. at 535).Continue Reading Don’t Forget the Details: How Conclusory Pleadings Can Thwart Nonparty Disclosure

The burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over a defendant rests with the plaintiff. Service of process is a necessary component of jurisdiction, and it is not complete until proof of service is filed. Ordinarily, defective service of process is not a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant dismissal. But when it comes to “affix and mail” service under CPLR § 308(4), the statutory requirement of “due diligence” must be strictly observed, otherwise dismissal may result.  A recent decision from Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Robert Reed in Arena Special Opportunities Fund, LLC v McDermott discusses just how much diligence is required.Continue Reading If the Service Was Poor, You’ll Have to Do More – How Much Diligence Is Due for Affix and Mail Service?

The attorney-client privilege is an old and well-known evidentiary privilege. It fosters candor between attorney and client, protects confidential information from being revealed to others, and ensures that the attorney can render accurate and competent legal advice. On occasion, the privilege extends to third parties. For instance, the “common interest doctrine” may protect communications between business entities with common interests in a lawsuit. A recent decision from Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Robert R. Reed, West 87 LP v. Paul Hastings LLP, exemplifies how instrumental the doctrine can be in commercial practice.Continue Reading Keep it Secret, Keep it Safe: Commercial Division Protects Corporate Client Communications Under the Common-Interest Doctrine

Section 3104 of the CPLR authorizes courts to appoint a judge or referee to supervise disclosure proceedings. The appointed referee enjoys “all the powers of the court” to resolve discovery disputes. A party seeking review of a referee’s order must, within five days after the order is made, file a motion in the court in which the action is pending. Lawyers involved in supervised disclosure proceedings should be familiar with the requirements for review contained in CPLR 3104(d). In a recent decision from New York County’s Commercial Division, Justice Robert R. Reed reminds us that only strict adherence to those requirements will suffice to obtain review.Continue Reading “C’mon Ref!” – Right and Wrong Ways to Challenge the Call in a Supervised Disclosure Proceeding

When a party to a contract repudiates, the non-repudiating party is faced with two options: (1) treat the repudiation as an anticipatory breach, terminate the contract and seek damages; or (2) continue to treat the contract as valid and await the time for performance before bringing suit. In a recent decision from the Suffolk County

In recent years, the New York court system has endorsed alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) as a way to increase efficiency in the court system, making ADR presumptive in most civil cases.  As a pioneer of efficiency, the Commercial Division has reinforced – through the adoption of multiple ADR-related rules and rule amendments – its “strong

A few weeks ago, my colleague, Madeline Greenblatt, wrote a blog about a $1.75 million breach of contract action brought against Bob Dylan in the Manhattan Commercial Division. In her blog, Madeline reminded practitioners that New York courts will not consider extrinsic evidence to aid in the interpretation of an unambiguous contract, especially on