As the name and subject matter of this blog would suggest, we here at Farrell Fritz are big fans of the Commercial Division. It’s where we practice. It’s what we know.
After all, we’ve been reporting on decisions coming out the Com Div on this and our other blogs for more than a decade –
Consider this situation: You are a shareholder of a company who is about to enter into a contract with a third party. But you know that this is a bad deal that will negatively impact the company. Your immediate reaction is to stop this deal from materializing because you have a vested interest in the
In a recent case, Gammel v Immelt (2019 NY Slip Op 32005[U]), shareholders of General Electric Company (GE), brought a derivative shareholder action against the members of GE’s board of directors and various committees charged 
with overseeing GE’s business operations. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action sounding in gross mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty, among
“Should I stay or should I go”, queried the Clash. Litigators are often faced with the same question, albeit in a far different context. Most (but certainly not all!) Commercial Division practitioners try to move litigation with some degree of alacrity. The quicker the litigation proceeds, the swifter the resolution. Clients like quick resolutions.
New York is continuously working to advance the delivery and quality of civil justice in this state. We recently discussed the technological developments in New York State Commercial Division courtrooms and a few months ago we discussed the increasingly-codified perspective of Commercial Division Justices to encourage junior attorneys to play a larger role in the
At the New York City Bar Association the evening of February 25th, five recently retired justices of the Commercial Division—Hon. Eileen Bransten, Hon. Shirley W. Kornreich, Hon. Charles E. Ramos, Hon. Melvin L. Schweitzer, and moderator Hon. Carolyn E. Demarest—convened for a panel entitled “The Commercial Division: Past, Present and Future.”
Most litigators are familiar with the requirement that a summary motion be supported with “evidentiary proof in admissible form” establishing the merits of a cause of action or defense. Nevertheless, many practitioners make the common mistake of submitting evidence in support of a summary judgment motion that would not be admissible at trial, resulting in
In our last “Check the Rules” post back in December, we noted the recent additions to the Manhattan Commercial Division bench, Justices Andrew Borrok and Joel M. Cohen, and promised to report back in early 2019 on any notable practice rules in their respective Parts.
My colleague Viktoriya Liberchuk’s perceptive post last week on
A preliminary injunction is one of the available provisional remedies, namely, equitable relief entered by a court prior to a final determination of the merits. The relief usually orders a party to restrain from a course of conduct or compels a party to continue with a course of conduct until the action has been decided.
As readers of this blog have come to appreciate, we here at New York Commercial D
ivision Practice tend to report on — among other things Commercial Division — the procedural particularities of litigating commercial matters before the various judges that have been assigned to the Commercial Division over the years. Such particularities may arise