On April 29, 2025, the Justice Robert R. Reed of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of New York County issued a significant ruling in ACM MCC VI LLC v. Able Liquidation Three, Thomas Rossi, et al., granting a default judgment on liability against defendant Thomas Rossi in a commercial dispute after two
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
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 explains that “[t]hese rules emphasize the importance of pre-trial preparation and remind the practitioner that such preparation is an essential element of successfully . . . conducting a complex commercial . . . trial [and] identify a series of key items that must be addressed or completed before commencing a trial in the Commercial Division” (emphasis added). The Preamble goes on to list the items that counsel are obligated to address in advance, including:
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 Division Rules. These changes aim to maintain the utmost level of efficiency and reinforce the Commercial Division’s standing as a global leader in resolving commercial disputes.
The Advisory Council has recently proposed a significant rule change: an amendment to Commercial Division Rule 11 to mandate immediate exchange of specified categories of information at the outset of any litigation in the Commercial Division, eliminating the need for formal discovery requests. This proposal seeks to reduce some of the costs, delays, and complications associated with discovery, and to allow parties to “competently assess the risks of trial and the benefits of potential settlement in the early stage of the litigation.”
The proposal recommends a more standardized disclosure system for all Commercial Division cases, replacing the existing practice in which individual judges often establish their own “partial-disclosure regimes” to facilitate discovery. The Advisory Council believes that having a Commercial Division rule tailored to the discovery needs of complex commercial litigation will create a “more uniform and consistent approach, benefiting counsel and preventing the spread of individual judges’ idiosyncratic practices.”Continue Reading Getting Ahead of Discovery: Can Amended Rule 11 Streamline Commercial Litigation?
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 things easier for the judge to accept clearly stated facts that cannot be contested before the commencement of a trial. The last thing that you want to happen is to be caught in a Steve Urkel “did i do that ” moment in failing to dispute a contested fact. A recent decision issued by Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Robert R. Reed sheds light on the consequences of that very scenario.
Background and Analysis:
Perella Weinberg Partners LLC et al. v Michael A. Kramer et al., involved a breach-of-contract dispute related to the defendants’ departure from the plaintiffs’ financial-advisory firm. During the course of the litigation, both parties moved for summary judgment on their respective claims and counterclaims. As part of their submissions, the parties submitted and responded to their respective Rule 19-a statements.Continue Reading A Cautious Reminder When Responding to a Rule 19-a Statement of Material Facts on a Motion for Summary Judgment
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 govern the filing of amicus curiae briefs.
Amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs are used by non-parties, usually in federal appellate cases, who want to assist a court on issues in which they may have an interest. Typically, amicus curiae briefs are allowed if they assist a court in analyzing an issue or argument that a party to the action is not able to fully and adequately present (see 22 NYCRR § 500.23 [a] [4]).
But amicus curiae brief filings in a state trial court, you say? Yes, you read that right. Despite the scarcity of such filings, the Advisory Council’s proposal attempts to introduce Rule 23 “given [the ComDiv’s] docket of sophisticated and often far-reaching commercial and business litigation.”Continue Reading You Got a Friend in Me: Commercial Division Seeks to Adopt New Rule Governing the Filing of Amicus Curiae Briefs
Amid the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, and gearing up for the new year, the Commercial Division Advisory Council (the “Advisory Council”) was hard at work in proposing new rule changes. On December 26, 2024, the New York State Office of Court Administration issued a request seeking public commentary on a proposal, recommended by the Advisory Council, to amend Commercial Division Rules Section 22 NYCRR §202.70 (c) concerning non-commercial cases.
Section 22 NYCRR §202.70 (c)(5), in particular, provides that courts within the Commercial Division are not permitted to hear proceedings to enforce judgments, even where the required monetary threshold is met. Some Commercial Division judges have interpreted this rule as a bar to the enforcement of judgments, even if such judgments were obtained in the Commercial Division (see e.g., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v World Class Capital Group LLC, Index No. 650318/2020 [Sup Ct, NY County Nov. 20, 2020]; J. Remora Maintenance LLC v Efromovich, 2018 WL 4963419, at *2 [Sup Ct, NY County Oct. 15, 2018]).Continue Reading New Year, New (Proposed) Rules: Updates in the Commercial Division
One of the ongoing goals of the New York State Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) is to periodically update and refine the jurisdictional criteria for the Commercial Division to ensure that it exclusively handles complex commercial matters. As part of this effort, OCA has proposed an important change aimed at establishing a monetary threshold for cases seeking equitable or declaratory relief.
Currently, a case that is presumptively considered “commercial” and seeks equitable or declaratory relief is not required to meet any monetary threshold. However, on September 20, 2024, the OCA issued a Request for Public Comment on a proposal to amend 22 NYCRR § 202.70 (a) and (b), based on recommendations from the Commercial Division Advisory Council (“CDAC”). These proposed amendments would introduce a monetary threshold specifically for cases seeking equitable or declaratory relief within the Commercial Division. While the change may seem small, its implications for practitioners and litigants would be substantial.Continue Reading The Commercial Division Proposes a Monetary Threshold for Equitable and Declaratory Relief: Implications and Insights
Continue Reading The Cost of Withholding ESI: First Department Sets Limits on Non-Party Recovery of ESI Production Costs
- Reasonable fees charged by outside counsel and e-discovery consultants;
- Reasonable costs incurred in connection with the identification, preservation, collection, processing, hosting, use of advanced analytical software applications and other technologies, review for relevance and privilege, preparation of a privilege log (to the extent one is requested), and production;
- Reasonable costs associated with disruption to the non-party’s normal business operations, provided such costs are quantifiable and warranted by the facts and circumstances; and
- Other costs reasonably identified by the non-party.
Under CPLR §§ 3111 and 3122(d), “[t]he reasonable production expenses of a non-party witness shall be defrayed by the party seeking discovery.” The Commercial Division Rules at Appendix A (“Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI”) define “reasonable production expenses” to include:
Continue Reading The Cost of Withholding ESI: First Department Sets Limits on Non-Party Recovery of ESI Production Costs
- Reasonable fees charged by outside counsel and e-discovery consultants;
- Reasonable costs incurred in connection with the identification, preservation, collection, processing, hosting, use of advanced analytical software applications and other technologies, review for relevance and privilege, preparation of a privilege log (to the extent one is requested), and production;
- Reasonable costs associated with disruption to the non-party’s normal business operations, provided such costs are quantifiable and warranted by the facts and circumstances; and
- Other costs reasonably identified by the non-party.
I think it’s fair to say that Commercial Division judges have little time for discovery disputes. If one peruses the individual practice rules of many of the ComDiv judges, one typically finds language all but prohibiting discovery motions. And ComDiv Rule 14, which itself provides that “[d]iscovery disputes are preferred to be resolved through court conference as opposed to motion practice,” expressly gives the judges the discretion to do so (“If the court’s Part Rules address discovery disputes, those Part Rules will govern discovery disputes in a pending case”). If a particular ComDiv judge’s individual rules are silent on the matter, then the default rule in Rule 14 applies. In which case, counsel are restricted to (i) making a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute(s) amongst themselves; and (ii) if unsuccessful on their own, submitting competing letters outlining their respective positions and asking for the opportunity to conference the dispute(s) with the court.
Commercial Division judges also have little time for attorney gamesmanship. Again, the ComDiv Rules expressly support this sentiment, as one need look no further than the Preamble to the Rules, which was amended some five years ago to insist on, among other things, “that the practicing bar be held rigorously to a standard of commitment and professionalism of the highest caliber.” This includes conduct at depositions. Continue Reading Playing Nice in the Litigation Sandbox