It works the same way in small businesses as it does in major investment firms: the executives reach agreement on the terms of a deal, then leave the lawyers to paper things accordingly. But sometimes the papered deal differs from the agreement the parties actually reached, and neither side notices the differences until long after
As we continue to see increased litigation over electronic programs, apps, and algorithms, courts are increasingly called to consider discovery requests for the coding behind that technology. These requests highlight the tension between the need for broad discovery and the litigant’s proprietary interest in secret, commercially valuable source code. And as a recent First Department
Our parents taught us to think before we speak. That lesson is especially important when words or conduct could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond what was previously agreed upon in a subcontract agreement.
In a recent case before Justice Andrea Masley, Corporate Electrical Technologies, Inc. v. Structure Tone, Inc. et al.
“Should I stay or should I go”, queried the Clash. Litigators are often faced with the same question, albeit in a far different context. Most (but certainly not all!) Commercial Division practitioners try to move litigation with some degree of alacrity. The quicker the litigation proceeds, the swifter the resolution. Clients like quick resolutions.
In law, as in life, mistakes happen. Some are irreparable: Statute of repose expired? Too much denim? In these circumstances, the law affords the court no discretion for mercy. Other errors, however, must be forgiven. In a recent decision, Commercial Division Justice Andrew Borrok held that plaintiff’s inadvertent failure to file proof of
The attorney-client privilege is intended to protect communications between an attorney and his/her client. The Supreme Court stated that the privilege exists to “encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.” See Upjohn Co. v. United States,
A commercial division litigator knows the severity of missing a statutory deadline. We discuss the implications of missing statutory deadlines here. CPLR 306(b) is unique in that it provides a statutory deadline for service of process, yet also provides a bit of a safety net for practitioners. However, in his recent decision in Plank,
As readers of this blog have come to appreciate, we here at New York Commercial D
ivision Practice tend to report on — among other things Commercial Division — the procedural particularities of litigating commercial matters before the various judges that have been assigned to the Commercial Division over the years. Such particularities may arise
As litigators in the Commercial Division, everyone knows that discovery can be particularly burdensome and time consuming. This is especially true when you have clients that are very protective of their information. The Commercial Division already has anticipated this by offering attorneys a model confidentiality agreement, which in some cases can be further negotiated
Over the past year or so, we have made a point of highlighting in the “Check the Rules” series on this blog periodic updates to the individual practice rules of certain Commercial Division Justices, including Justice Eileen Bransten in New York County (twice, in fact), Justices Marguerite A. Grays and Leonard Livote in
