A recent decision from the Manhattan Commercial Division reminds us of the ramifications of non-compliance with discovery obligations. Although in my experience courts (especially the Commercial Division) typically do not like to get involved in discovery disputes (see, e.g., ComDiv Rule 14 requiring parties to meet and confer to resolve all discovery disputes)
Here at New York Commercial Division Practice, my colleagues and I have waxed poetic about New York’s Commercial Division, the nation’s first general trial court devoted exclusively to business litigation, by repeatedly extolling the benefits of practicing in a forum dedicated to and fully adept at adjudicating complex business disputes. As such, we would
Arbitration can be an effective alternative for parties seeking to avoid drawn-out and costly litigation. As a result, it has become common practice for parties to negotiate arbitration clauses into their agreements. However, parties consenting to arbitration should be prepared to abide by an arbitrator’s discretion, especially regarding discovery. If not, parties might be left
On February 14, 2024, Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas signed an Administrative Order amending Section 202.70(b)(1) of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme and County Courts (Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court), and adding a new Rule 9-b to Section 202.70(g). But rather than vest the Commercial Division with new powers
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
On April 2, 2024, the New York State Bar Association’s (“NYSBA”) Task Force on Artificial Intelligence released a report concerning the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the legal profession (“Report”). New York joins select states, such as Florida and California, whose bar associations have published recommendations on the use of AI. The nearly 90-page Report examined the (1) evolution of AI and generative AI; (2) benefits and risks of AI and generative AI use; (3) impact of the technology on the legal profession; (4) legislative overview and recommendations; and (5) proposed guidelines. To date, the Report is the most comprehensive document provided by a state bar association regarding AI use. Continue Reading AI Etiquette: A User’s Manual Provided by the NYSBA
As one can easily glean, we here at the New York Commercial Division Practice Blog view New York’s Commercial Division as the heartbeat of business litigation in the United States. So, we think getting your business litigation in front of the Commercial Division is a big deal. But what happens when you have a case that meets the requirements for the Commercial Division, and you are not assigned to that Part?
Generally, there are two ways to be assigned to the Commercial Division under § 202.70[d] of the New York Code of Rules and Regulation (the “Rules”). The first is for any party to file an RJI with the accompanying Commercial Division Addendum 90 days following service of the complaint. The second is by consent of the parties via a forum – selection clause in the parties’ contract.
But what if a party files an RJI before the 90-day period runs without requesting assignment or submitting a Commercial Division Addendum? The answer lies in § 202.70[e] of the Rules, which permits a party to apply via letter to the Administrative Judge within 10 days of the RJI for transfer to the Commercial Division.
But what if the request is made outside the time limits in § 202.70[d] and [e] of the Rules? Again, § 202.70[e] of the Rules permits a letter application to the Administrative Judge showing “good cause” for the delay.
While the timing provisions are relatively simple to work though, the “good cause” standard under CPLR 2004, which requires reasoning for the delay, is a bit more subjective, as a finding of good cause is within the discretion of the Administrative Judge. It is imperative, therefore, to point the Administrative Judge to applications with analogous issues or facts to support your cause. As for where to find those decisions, never fear, the Commercial Division itself provides some help in this regard.
On the New York Courts webpage, the Commercial Division has a page titled Administrative Judge on Transfer Applications. That page provides a list of all the Administrative Judge’s decisions on transfer applications from prior to the effective date of the Commercial Division Rules on January 17, 2006, to the present.
For example, what if a timely request for Commercial Division assignment was not filed, but you have a related case pending before a Commercial Division Judge? The Administrative Order in ABG HMX LLC v. Alba Longa Concepts LLC provides precedent for the Administrative Judge granting a transfer for “good cause”, in this context. And what if a request for Commercial Division assignment is rejected by the clerk’s office but was only a few days late? Curtis v. Merrill Lynch, et al provides precedent for the Administrative Judge granting a transfer if the request was “untimely albeit only by a matter of days.” But waiting years before filing a transfer application is not wise. In ABL Advisor LLC, et al. v. Ian S. Peck, et al, the Administrative Judge denied a transfer application made two years into the litigation, finding that the “rules are designed to ensure that appropriate cases are assigned to the Commercial Division at the inception of the case, not two years into the litigation.” Finally, what if you have a complex commercial case but one of the issues is arguably excluded from review by the Commercial Division? In City of New York v. FC 42nd Street Associates, L.P., the Administrative Judge granted transfer of a generally excluded real property case that dealt with the determination of fair market value in relation to rental income, agreeing that while the case “is not an action for the payment of rent only, … the complaint raises complex questions of commercial and arbitration law and belongs in the Commercial Division.” And there are many more helpful examples for litigators on the Commercial Division’s “Transfer Application” page.
In short, the next time you find yourself in a position where leave to the Administrative Judge is required for assignment to the Commercial Division, remember the Commercial Division and its readily available resources has you covered. Continue Reading Help, I Need to Get My Case into the Commercial Division!! Transfer and Determinations by the Administrative Judge
As one might gather from the title of this blog, we here at New York Commercial Division Practice try to make a more-than-occasional point of extolling the virtues of the Commercial Division. From its well-established reputation as a sophisticated, cost-effective, predictable, and expeditious forum to its related ability to attract businesses nationwide to litigate their disputes in New York State, when it comes to litigating commercial cases in New York, the Commercial Division is the place to be.
Every year around this time, New York’s Chief Administrative Judge publishes an annual report, which “collect[s], compile[s] and publish[es] statistics and other data with respect to the unified court system and submit[s] annually, on or before the fifteenth day of March, to the legislature and governor a report of activities and the state of the unified court system during the preceding year.” The New York State Unified Court System’s 2023 Annual Report, which was just published last week, devoted a section to the Commercial Division under the heading “A Commitment to Society,” in which the Chief Administrator praised the work of the Commercial Division Advisory Council, which, under the leadership of Robert L. Haig, Esq., has helped develop the Commerical Division into becoming “a recognized leader in court system innovation, … demonstrating an unparalleled creativity and flexibility in [the] development of rules and practices.” Continue Reading The Chief Administrative Judge’s 2023 Annual Report, the State of the Commercial Division, and Other ComDiv Goings-On
[t]he statement of any person wherever made, subscribed and affirmed by that person to be true under the penalties of perjury, may be used in an action in New York in lieu of and with the same force and effect as
Commercial litigants often seek the provisional and equitable remedy of a preliminary injunction under Article 63 of the CPLR to protect the client’s rights that are difficult to monetize and quantify. The relief sought typically involves a party restraining from certain conduct and maintaining the status quo where it “appears that the defendant threatens or