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
Commercial Division litigators often hope that mediation will lead to a negotiated settlement, but their expectation – based on their prior experience – is that it will not. In this sense, mediation seems to have significant unrealized potential as a settlement tool in the Commercial Division.
A new proposal of the ADR Committee of
The New York Commercial Division was founded in 1993 “to test whether it would be possible, by concentrating on commercial litigation, to improve the efficiency with which such matters were addressed by the court and, at the same time, to enhance the quality of judicial treatment of those cases.” Among other things, its continual adoption
Perhaps I’m revealing too much about my abilities in a prior life to balance academic and social priorities, but does anyone else remember the “not less than X pages” page requirements for high-school and college term papers and the corresponding font, margin, and line-spacing tricks for getting the assignment over the finish line?
Well,
For the fifth installment of this blog’s ongoing “Check the Rules” series, we feature the individual practice or part rules of the Justices of the Kings County Commercial Division, particularly those recently instituted by Hon. Sylvia G. Ash.
As hyperlinked within any number of past posts on this blog, the Commercial Division’s official webpage
In one of our very first posts on this blog – entitled “First Things First: Check the Rules!” – we reported on some updates in March of this year to Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Eileen Bransten’s individual practice rules. We took the opportunity then to remind Commercial Division practitioners, in light of the
Disclosure of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) has become a staple in commercial cases. Of course, with the vast number of documents and ESI being reviewed and the increased complexity in the review process, the risk of inadvertent production of privileged information is at its highest. The inadvertent production of privileged material often leads to lengthy,
“The expert discovery rules are promulgated so no party will be ‘sandbagged’ or surprised by another expert’s opinion” – Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Eileen Bransten
Several weeks ago, we reviewed some of the newer Commercial Division Rules and reported on a couple of recent decisions from Justice Shirley Werner Korneich of the Manhattan Commercial
Two recent amendments to the Commercial Division Rules, designed to encourage alternative dispute resolution, will go into effect on January 1, 2018.
The amendment to Rule 10 requires counsel to certify that they have discussed with their clients the availability of alternative dispute resolution options in their case. Specifically, counsel will be required to submit
As we have come to expect, the Commercial Division Advisory Council periodically makes recommendations to amend and/or supplement the Rules of the Commercial Division, many of which are eventually adopted following a solicitation process for public comment by the Office of Court Administration.
In 2015, as a host of new Commercial Division rules