Commercial leases are not all boilerplate. The nature and sophistication of the business or industry of the tenant can lead to lease terms, addenda, riders and exhibits that are complicated and in some cases contain what the parties believe to be sensitive or confidential information not for public consumption. When a dispute arises between the
Summer Day Camp Derivative Headed to Trial
“Sibling relationships are complicated. All family relationships are. Look at Hamlet.” Maurice Saatchi.
A recent decision in Greenhaus v. Gersh out of the Commercial Division, Suffolk County, is yet another example. This time, the business is a summer day camp located on the north shore of Long Island in Huntington, New York. Almost
Law firm’s “no poaching” agreement escapes judicial review, and heads to arbitration
Neil Sedaka was right. “Breaking up is hard to do.” It’s no easier for law firms. The saga over the departure of key partners from Quinn Emanuel continues, but this time in arbitration, not the courts.
Justice Saliann Scarpulla was faced with a motion by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP to dismiss
How to Effectuate a Change in Venue in an E-filed Case: lesson to the bar
Ever wondered how to effectuate a transfer of venue following your successful motion to change venue in an e-filed case? Well wonder no more, as the Hon. Robert D. Kalish provides the bench and bar with a useful roadmap of what to do in American Transit A/S/O Sherman Ave. Eight Inc. v. Flour City Bagels
Are There Heightened Pleading Requirements When Alleging Consequential Damages Against an Insurer in a Coverage Dispute? “No”, Says the First Department
Are “consequential damages” available on contract claim against an insurer in an action brought by an insured for breach of a commercial liability policy? In D.K. Prop., Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins., a recent case out of the First Department, the answer is a resounding “yes”. There, the complaint alleged two causes of
Judicial Dissolution Proceeding against Donald J. Trump Foundation Withstands Dismissal Motion
The Donald J. Trump Foundation, a private foundation incorporated in 1987, was formed “exclusively for charitable, religious, scientific, literary or educational purposes”, and as stated in the Certificate of Incorporation, shall not be for propaganda or participating or intervening in “any political campaign.” The Foundation’s president and founder, is Donald J. Trump.
The Attorney
Does “freedom of contract” really exist when it comes to statute of limitations in a mortgage-backed securities contract?
Although we generally report on recent Commercial Division decisions, and sometimes commercial cases coming out of the Appellate Divisions, this time we go all the way to the top: the Court of Appeals. Not often do we see commercial cases with a procedural twist coming out of our High Court (of NY). However, last week,
Is the Defense of “Release” Documentary Evidence Under 3211(a)(1) or an Affirmative Defense Under (a)(5)(or does it matter)?
In Miller v. Brunner, the Appellate Division, Second Department spoke clearly (again) about how to move to dismiss on the defense of release. In a case arising out of the Commercial Division in Kings County (Hon. Sylvia G. Ash), a question on appeal was whether the defense of release is considered “documentary
Court cannot search the record on claims not the subject of the motion, or can it?
The Appellate Division, in a short but direct ruling, reminds the bench and bar that courts cannot simply “search the record” and grant summary judgment on claims or defenses that are not the subject of the motion. It did so this time in the context of an LLC judicial dissolution action pending in the Commercial
In Pari Delicto Defense Can be Raised for the First Time on Appeal, But is No Defense to a Fraudulent Conveyance
Failure to raise an issue at the trial court level is generally considered a waiver of that issue on appeal. Notwithstanding, state courts recognize certain circumstances when raising an issue for the first time on appeal does not prejudice the adversary because the legal issue is “apparent on the face of the record.” 26th LS