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
Over a beautiful, sunny weekend earlier this month (May 17-19), commercial litigators and judges from all over the State converged on Saratoga Springs and the beautiful Gideon Putnam Hotel, for the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section Spring 2024 Meeting. In addition to the receptions, dinners, golf and after-program discussions, all of which were excellent, the Spring Meeting was jam-packed with two days of substantive, thought-provoking and forward-thinking topics. The program was remarkable enough that we here at New York Commercial Division Practice thought it appropriate to report the goings-on for all that could not attend.
After a wonderful opening reception and dinner on Friday night to kick off the Meeting, including introductory remarks from ComFed Chair Anne B. Sekel, Esq.; Chair-Elect, Michael Cardello III, Esq.; and Simply Saratoga author, Carol Godette, NYSBA members in attendance were in for a treat first thing Saturday morning, when former Farrell Fritz partner and current U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Hon. James L. Wicks; U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, Hon. Mary Kay Vyskocil; Ralph Cater, Esq.; Moya Novella, Esq.; and Stephen Breidenbach, Esq. led a panel discussion about what AI and its platforms are, how they work (or do not work), and how AI is used by litigators in practice. The panel had attendees on the edge of their seats, demonstrating in real-time the functionality of various AI platforms performing legal tasks such as drafting extension letters, briefs, and deposition outlines, all while attempting to incorporate individual court practice rules. The panel then took up the ethical and other implications of using AI, including in regards to the duty of competence, duty of diligence, duty to communicate, duty of confidentiality, and the unauthorized practice of law. It was a great start to the Meeting. Continue Reading Happenings from the NYSBA Commercial and Federal Litigation Section Spring 2024 Meeting
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