The CPLR 3123 notice to admit can be a useful device in litigation. Its primary purpose is to expedite a trial by eliminating the necessity of proving a “readily admittable fact” or matter not in dispute. But, as efficient as it sounds, the notice to admit is a limited device, and may only be used
The New York Commercial Division was created 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.” By implementing rules and procedures developed with efficiency in mind and after careful consultation with Judges and practitioners alike, the Commercial Division has become a resounding success; it is one of the most efficient and effective forums in the world for the litigation of complex civil disputes.
It should therefore come as no surprise that other New York courts have taken notice of the innovative rule changes contributing to the success of the Commercial Division. As Chief Administrative Judge Marks observes: “through the work of the Commercial Division Advisory Council – a committee of commercial practitioners, corporate in-house counsel and jurists devoted to the Division’ s excellence – the Commercial Division has functioned as an incubator, becoming a recognized leader in court system innovation, and demonstrating an unparalleled creativity and flexibility in development of rules and practices.”
Now, by Administrative Order effective February 1, 2021, the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court (the “Uniform Rules”) will incorporate, in whole or in part, nearly 30 Commercial Division Rules. Some of these changes were foreshadowed by my colleague Paige Bartholomew in 2018 when the Unified Court System’s Advisory Committee on Civil Practice requested public comment on whether to adopt nine of the Commercial Division’s Rules.
Continue Reading Innovation Becomes the Norm: Commercial Division Rules Shape Revised Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court
“Successor liability”, is it a theory or distinct claim or cause of action?
In a recent decision, Justice Sherwood analyze
d the applicability of successor liability as a distinct cause of action, rather than merely a theory of liability in New York. In Meyer v Blue Sky Alternative Investments LLC, plaintiff Meyer moved to amend
Recently, Justice James Hudson issued a decision testing the limits of New York’s Long Arm Statute. The Court was tasked with determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over an out-of-state defendant, based on a claim arising from an out-of-state contract, but where a portion of the work under the contract was performed in New York.
In
Trademark registration is essential for small business owners who are looking to build and protect the brand within their community. But when a competitor opens up down the street with the same or similar name, trademark 
registration may only be half the battle: customer confusion is the other half. Justice Elizabeth Hazlitt Emerson’s ruling in
I
n 2015, our colleagues in the white-collar criminal defense bar braced for the impact of a memorandum penned by then Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. The Yates Memo encouraged both federal prosecutors and civil enforcement attorneys to make increased efforts to hold culpable individuals accountable for corporate misconduct.
The Yates Memo embodied the precept
As
New York courts reopen and the mandatory stay-at-home order is lifted, what remains unclear is how the numerous Executive Orders issued by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo during the COVID-19 pandemic will affect individuals and businesses who, based on the economic effects of the crisis, may no longer be able to abide by previously issued
Attorneys do a lot for their clients. They offer counsel, provide legal advice, and work hard to advocate for their client. But one thing they shouldn’t do, is assist their client perpetrate millions of dollars of fraud and then assert a flawed statute of limitations defense in a desperate attempt to avoid liability. Unfortunately that’s
Foreign cities, thieves, and millions of dollars’ worth of missing diamonds. This may sound like the trailer for this summer’s blockbuster action film, but this story of hustling and heisting comes straight from Swissgem S.A and Genevagem S.A. v M&B Limited, a New York case recently decided by Commercial Division Justice Peter O. 
Sherwood.
Disputes over the scope of insurance coverage are common fixtures in the Commercial Division Courts. Earlier this month, the First Department partially affirmed Justice Sherwood’s decision in Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Schorsch et al. Considering a matter of first impression in the New York Commercial Division Courts, the decision holds that a D&O policy’s