Under CPLR 7502(c), a court in “the county in which an arbitration is pending…[is permitted to] entertain an application…for a preliminary injunction in connection with an arbitration that is pending or that is to be commenced inside or outside this state.”
A recent decision from Justice Anar R. Patel of the Manhattan Commercial Division
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
As summer winds down, ComDiv practitioners no doubt will soon be gearing up for the upcoming fall and winter months. Time again to trade in your flip-flops for legal pads. The year-end push will soon be upon us.
As practitioners start to populate their calendars with various litigation deadlines, we take this opportunity to
As readers of this blog no doubt are aware, clients sometimes take a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach during the early stages of litigation. This is especially true when bringing a CPLR 3213 motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, which, under narrow circumstances, provides an accelerated procedure for litigants to obtain a
New York law generally does not favor non-compete agreements, viewing them as unreasonable restraint of trade. As a result, New York courts apply a rigorous standard when deciding whether to enforce these restrictive agreements. The strict standard was demonstrated in Multiplier Inc. v. Moreno, et al. In Multiplier Inc., the Manhattan Commercial Division considered
It’s been a minute since our last installment of our “Check the Rules” series here on New York Commercial Division Practice, in which we occasionally highlight decisions from Commercial Division judges holding litigants and practitioners to account for noncompliance with either the Rules of the Commercial Division or the individual practice rules
Commercial Division litigators are keenly aware of CPLR 3215’s proof requirements. We can recite in our sleep the need to submit (1) proof of service, (2) proof of default, (3) the amount due, and (4) facts constituting the claim. While the elements themselves are pretty straightforward, the nuances can be tricky – particularly relating to the facts necessary to constitute the claim. The CPLR permits the facts constituting the claim to be submitted by affidavit or the complaint itself, if it is verified. There is no express language in the CPLR suggesting that the movant is required to show prima facie entitlement to relief. But as Manhattan Commercial Division reiterated recently in Bellino v. Dormet, Inc., et al., that is exactly what is required.
Bellino stems from a business venture allegedly gone bad. Plaintiff alleges that between 2019 and 2020 he and his business partner formed Doromet, Inc. (the “Company”) to import precious metals from South America to the United States. Plaintiff alleges to have made capital contributions to the Company totaling $550,000 between August 2019 and August 2020 that were ultimately used to purchase gold that was going to be imported by supplier – defendant Garcia (“Garcia”) in compliance with the legal requirements of Brazil and the United States. Plaintiff alleges that the Company paid Garcia $1 million to purchase and import gold from Brazil, which included $500,000 of Plaintiff’s capital contribution. According to Plaintiff, the gold was seized by Brazilian authorities due to alleged non-compliance with Brazilian export requirements. Plaintiff thereafter demanded return of his $550,000 from his partner and Garcia, neither of whom complied. Continue Reading Commercial Division Reiterates That It’s Not a Rubber Stamp for CPLR 3215 Default Motions: Movant Must Set Forth Prima Facie Entitlement to Judgment
Piggybacking off of the success of its 2022 and 2023 lecture series, the Commercial Division Advisory Council held its third annual lunchtime Zoom lecture series during June for summer interns working with Commercial Division Justices, summer associates at law firms, and this year expanding it to lawyers and bar associations worldwide. The stated goal of the series was to educate the future lawyers and others about the Commercial Division and commercial practice, the wide variety of cases that come before the Commercial Division, and the value of clerking, interning, and litigating in the Commercial Division.
At these lunch-and-learns, those who zoomed in were fortunate enough to learn about essential litigation topics from the following distinguished speakers:
| Date | Topic | Speakers |
| June 6, 2024 | Motion Practice | Hon. Joel M. Cohen Robert J. Giuffra Jr. |
| June 12, 2024 | Written and Electronic Discovery | Hon. Margaret A. Chan Hon. Richard Platkin Lynn K. Neuner Linton Mann III George S. Wang |
| June 18, 2024 | Depositions | Hon. Timothy S. Driscoll Hon. Andrea Masley Roberta A. Kaplan Timothy S. Martin John C. Quinn |
| June 26, 2024 | Trials | Hon. Robert R. Reed Loretta E. Lynch Daniel J. Toal |
By now, you are likely fully aware that we litigators at Farrell Fritz are huge proponents of the Commercial Division, and so we jumped at the opportunity to introduce our summer interns to its virtues through this lecture series.Continue Reading Commercial Division Offers Zoom Lunches That Pack Punches
In many cases, clients tend to place their trust, and often their livelihood, in the hands of their attorney. This expectation can be easily traced back to the attorney-client privilege, one of the oldest common-law privileges for confidential communications. In some instances, the attorney-client privilege may extend to third parties under the common-interest doctrine, which
Since the inception of the New York State Supreme Court Commercial Division Rules in 1993, the rules have been consistently amended and refined by judges with practitioners’ input to “improve the efficiency with which such [commercial] matters were addressed by the court and … to enhance the quality of judicial treatment of those cases.”
On