I have a soft spot for civil RICO: treble damages, enterprise allegations, the chance to elevate ordinary fraud into something operatic. But, as many of us have learned, civil RICO is not meant to transform ordinary commercial disputes into racketeering cases. Courts routinely dismiss such claims when plaintiffs fail to meet the statute’s strict pleading
Background
Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Robert R. Reed recently refused to enforce a settlement agreement purportedly reached by the parties via email in CoPilot Travel, Inc. v. Magstar Capital, LLC, 86 Misc. 3d 1271(A) [Supreme Court, New York County, 2025]. In CoPilot, the defendant Magstar attempted to persuade the court that the parties
As readers of this blog are well aware, we here at New York Commercial Division Practice repeatedly discuss decisions by the Commercial Division emphasizing strict adherence to the Commercial Division Rules. Nowhere is that clearer, and more common, than Commercial Division Rules 14 and 24, which require parties to make a good-faith effort to
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
As readers of this blog are well aware, we here at New York Commercial Division Practice take great pride in posting about proposed or amended rules of practice in the Commercial Division. Knowledge of the local rules is particularly relevant when filing documents. One recent local rule change that may catch our readers’ eyes is Nassau County Supreme Court’s new procedures for filing an order to show cause .
Litigants generally have two options when bringing a motion before a court in New York State: (i) a motion on notice; or (ii) a motion brought by order to show cause. An order to show cause is typically used for emergency applications or when a litigant is seeking some form of immediate relief, such as a stay or temporary restraining order. As part of an application for an order to show cause, a party’s attorney must submit an affirmation under 22 NYCRR § 202.7(f), which provides that the opposing party has been given notice of the date, place, and time that the application will be filed with the court in order to appear in response to the application. This is where things get interesting.Continue Reading A Good Lawyer Knows the Law; A Great Lawyer Also Knows the Local Rules
Every commercial litigator is familiar with the burdens at the discovery phase of litigation, whether it is a dispute over production, privilege, or just the sheer volume and cost (both time and money) associated. Be that as it may, discovery also serves a critical and necessary purpose in commercial litigation. Determining what to ask for and how
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
Lawyers practicing in the Commercial Division are keenly aware of issues related to attorneys’ fee awards in commercial cases. Commercial agreements commonly contain a provision awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in a manner sufficient to satisfy entitlement to an award under the contractual exception to “American Rule.” However, entitlement to a fee award
Most litigants associate injunctions as a remedy granted by a court to prevent a party from taking specific action. This is no surprise – as in most cases injunctions function to accomplish exactly that. However, in rare cases, courts will issue mandatory injunctions to force a party into taking specific action. Even though seldomly used, a mandatory injunction acts as an important judicial remedy to prevent irreparable harm by allowing courts to change the status quo.
The Dispute
The case of James Riv. Group Holdings, Ltd. v. Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC illustrates a rare example of a court issuing a mandatory injunction. The case centers around the failed closing of the sale of Plaintiff’s reinsurance subsidiary to Defendant. In November 2023, the parties executed a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) concerning the sale of Plaintiff’s reinsurance subsidiary. As the closing approached, Plaintiff worked to fulfill its SPA obligations and complete all requisite pre-closing events. However, at the time of closing, Defendant failed to appear and instead sent a letter demanding further concessions to close – claiming that Plaintiff did not comply with its SPA obligations. Based on the failed closing, Plaintiff sought specific performance, seeking the Court’s intervention in forcing the Defendant to fulfill its obligations under the SPA and close on the transaction.Continue Reading Changing the Status Quo: Commercial Division Issues Rare Mandatory Injunction
Whether in employment agreements or business transactions, drafters often include certain clauses within these documents to protect their client if litigation arises (e.g., arbitration clauses, forum- selection clauses). However, when not clearly drafted, these clauses can lead to a battle over where the case may proceed. Recently, Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Joel M. Cohen handed