When litigants pursue claims against foreign defendants, the question of how to serve them is more than procedural – it’s jurisdictional. As many readers of this blog are aware, CPLR 308 authorizes alternate service methods when traditional methods are shown to be impracticable. A recent decision from Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Margaret A. Chan confirms
Commercial loan documents are notoriously complex, packed with financial reporting requirements, compliance covenants, and collateral maintenance obligations. For practitioners seeking the expedited relief of CPLR 3213’s summary judgment in lieu of complaint procedure, a critical question emerges: do these additional obligations disqualify the instruments from streamlined treatment? In a recent decision, the New York County Commercial Division provided much-needed clarity on when ancillary provisions actually matter.
Section 3213 of the CPLR allows plaintiffs to move for summary judgment in lieu of complaint when an action is based on “an instrument for the payment of money only.” This expedited procedure bypasses the traditional pleading phase, but courts have long struggled with defining exactly what constitutes such an instrument.
The Court of Appeals established the foundational principle in Weissman v. Sinorm Deli, Inc., holding that “[w]here the instrument requires something in addition to defendant’s explicit promise to pay a sum of money, CPLR 3213 is unavailable.” However, this broad language can leave practitioners uncertain about the countless ancillary provisions that populate modern commercial lending documents.
In PFNGT LLC v. Liquid Capital LLC, Index No. 654595/2024, decided April 28, 2025, plaintiff PFNGT sought nearly $4 million under a secured promissory note, loan agreement, and related guaranty. The defendants—borrower Liquid Capital LLC, guarantor Riccardo Spagni, and pledgor Wyoming Trust—mounted a sophisticated defense, arguing that the loan documents contained extensive non-payment obligations that disqualified them from CPLR 3213 treatment.Continue Reading When Additional Obligations Don’t Derail CPLR 3213: Commercial Division Clarifies the Test
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
New York law generally does not favor non-compete agreements, viewing them as unreasonable restraint of trade. As a result, New York courts apply a rigorous standard when deciding whether to enforce these restrictive agreements. The strict standard was demonstrated in Multiplier Inc. v. Moreno, et al. In Multiplier Inc., the Manhattan Commercial Division considered
Over a beautiful, sunny weekend earlier this month (May 17-19), commercial litigators and judges from all over the State converged on Saratoga Springs and the beautiful Gideon Putnam Hotel, for the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section Spring 2024 Meeting. In addition to the receptions, dinners, golf and after-program discussions, all of which were excellent, the Spring Meeting was jam-packed with two days of substantive, thought-provoking and forward-thinking topics. The program was remarkable enough that we here at New York Commercial Division Practice thought it appropriate to report the goings-on for all that could not attend.
After a wonderful opening reception and dinner on Friday night to kick off the Meeting, including introductory remarks from ComFed Chair Anne B. Sekel, Esq.; Chair-Elect, Michael Cardello III, Esq.; and Simply Saratoga author, Carol Godette, NYSBA members in attendance were in for a treat first thing Saturday morning, when former Farrell Fritz partner and current U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Hon. James L. Wicks; U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, Hon. Mary Kay Vyskocil; Ralph Cater, Esq.; Moya Novella, Esq.; and Stephen Breidenbach, Esq. led a panel discussion about what AI and its platforms are, how they work (or do not work), and how AI is used by litigators in practice. The panel had attendees on the edge of their seats, demonstrating in real-time the functionality of various AI platforms performing legal tasks such as drafting extension letters, briefs, and deposition outlines, all while attempting to incorporate individual court practice rules. The panel then took up the ethical and other implications of using AI, including in regards to the duty of competence, duty of diligence, duty to communicate, duty of confidentiality, and the unauthorized practice of law. It was a great start to the Meeting. Continue Reading Happenings from the NYSBA Commercial and Federal Litigation Section Spring 2024 Meeting