Last fall, I blogged about the challenges of overturning an arbitrator’s award (check out that post here). That case illustrated the difficulties of vacating an award based on a purported erroneous ruling of law. But what if a party seeks to vacate an arbitrator’s award on procedural grounds—specifically, the alleged concealment of evidence?
The recent
Every litigator has experienced a technology hiccup at an inconvenient moment. But courts have made clear that vague references to “technical difficulties” will not excuse a failure to appear—and once a default judgment is entered, vacating it is an uphill battle. The recent case of Chen Dongwu v New York City Regional Ctr. LLC offers
Fiduciary duty claims between closely-held business owners are commonplace in litigation before the Commercial Division. A decision last fall from Suffolk County Commercial Division Justice James C. Hudson in Matter of Lehan v Montgomery serves as a professorial primer on the meaning and importance of fiduciary obligations between business partners.
The Dispute
Dix Hills Car
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
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”)
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
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
As my colleague, Matt Donovan, recently blogged, it is essential for litigants to “play[] nice in the litigation sandbox” or risk facing the ire of the Justices in the Commercial Division. Many litigants might think they are playing “nicely” by asserting “good cause” in their arguments. But what does it actually mean to have
As recently highlighted by this blog, on September 12, 2024, the Justices of the Commercial Division gathered in the offices of Kelley & Drye to discuss new updates and happenings in the world of the Commercial Division (“ComDiv”). The night was filled with lively discussion – leaving those fortunate enough to attend with valuable insights
As summer winds down, ComDiv practitioners no doubt will soon be gearing up for the upcoming fall and winter months. Time again to trade in your flip-flops for legal pads. The year-end push will soon be upon us.
As practitioners start to populate their calendars with various litigation deadlines, we take this opportunity to