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
On June 18, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok of the Manhattan Commercial Division issued a post-trial decision in IGC 444 Park LLC et al. v. 444 PAS Restaurant Associates LLC et al., finding individual defendant David Moinian (“Moinian”) personally liable for defamation per se. The ruling arose from statements Moinian made accusing IGC 444 of taking kick-backs, an allegation the court found to be both false and damaging to IGC 444’s professional reputation.
Background
On July 16, 2017, plaintiff IGC 444 Park LLC (“IGC 444”) entered into a management agreement with defendant 444 PAS Restaurant Associates LLC (“444 PAS”) to operate food and beverage services at the Mondrian Park Avenue Hotel. David Moinian signed the agreement as managing member of 444 PAS.
Under the agreement, 444 PAS was obligated to, inter alia, maintain a $150,000 working capital account, sign and submit any checks and invoices prepared by IGC 444 for payment of expenses related to food and beverage operations, and pay a management fee to IGC 444.
On January 21, 2019, IGC 444 issued a notice of default to 444 PAS and Moinian, alleging repeated breaches of the management agreement, including failure to pay invoices, maintain the working capital balance, and pay management fees. When 444 PAS failed to cure these breaches, IGC 444 filed suit, asserting various causes of action, including breach of the management agreement and defamation against Moinian, both individually and in his capacity as managing member of 444 PAS.Continue Reading Defamation in Business Disputes: Executive Held Personally Liable for False Kick-Back Accusation
Consistent with the Commercial Division Advisory Council’s (“Advisory Council”) mission – i.e., to ensure that the Commercial Division serves as a globally-recognized forum for the adjudication of complex commercial disputes – the Council this summer proposed to amend the Commercial Division Rules (22 NYCRR § 202.70) to clarify the types of insurance-coverage
On April 29, 2025, the Justice Robert R. Reed of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of New York County issued a significant ruling in ACM MCC VI LLC v. Able Liquidation Three, Thomas Rossi, et al., granting a default judgment on liability against defendant Thomas Rossi in a commercial dispute after two
In a recent decision, the New York County Commercial Division reaffirmed the high bar that parties must meet when attempting to seal court documents in business disputes. In Linkable Networks, Inc. v. Mastercard Inc., the court ruled that Mastercard, despite having the consent of the plaintiff, was not entitled to an order sealing documents referenced in prior motion practice and produced in discovery. This ruling is another reminder of the high bar courts have set to seal documents, as discussed by my colleague Serene Carino in her blog post “Signed, Seal, Delivered.” It also highlights the balance courts strike between protecting sensitive business information and upholding the public’s right to access judicial records.
Under Section 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, a court may seal or redact court records only upon a written finding of “good cause.” The rule stipulates that such an order must specify the grounds for sealing and take into account both the interests of the parties involved and the public’s right to transparency. In the business context, courts are more willing to seal records when trade secrets or competitive advantages are at risk.Continue Reading Commercial Division Clarifies Standards for Sealing Court Records in Business Disputes
Regular visitors to this blog no doubt are aware that the rules of practice for the Commercial Division are centered on innovation, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and predictability. This includes the rules governing trial and trial preparation (Rules 25-33), which are important enough to merit their own, separate Preamble.
As it stands, the Preamble to Rules 25-33
Frequent readers of this blog know that we are not shy in acknowledging the Commercial Division’s status as the leading forum for resolving complex business disputes. This reputation can be, in part, largely attributed to the ongoing efforts of the Commercial Division Advisory Council, which continually assesses and suggests practical, significant modifications to the Commercial
Although discretionary, it is well-known among commercial practitioners that the Commercial Division justices generally like a Rule 19-a statement of material facts included with the submission of a summary judgment motion. When responding to a Rule 19-a statement, the responding party should be thinking a couple moves ahead. The ultimate goal should be to make
As recently highlighted by my colleagues, the Commercial Division Advisory Council (“Advisory Council”) has been hard at work striving to implement and amend certain rules and regulations to enhance practice in the Commercial Division. One recent proposal that may catch practitioners’ eyes is the potential addition of Commercial Division Rule 23: a rule designed to
Amid the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, and gearing up for the new year, the Commercial Division Advisory Council (the “Advisory Council”) was hard at work in proposing new rule changes. On December 26, 2024, the New York State Office of Court Administration issued a request seeking public commentary on a proposal, recommended