Under CPLR §§ 3111 and 3122(d), “[t]he reasonable production expenses of a non-party witness shall be defrayed by the party seeking discovery.” The Commercial Division Rules at Appendix A (“Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI”) define “reasonable production expenses” to include:

  • Reasonable costs incurred in
  • My colleague Matt Donovan recently wrote about the requirements of Commercial Division Rule 13(c) and highlighted certain decisions in which expert reports were precluded for non-compliance. This week’s post looks at a decision by newly-appointed Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Nancy M. Bannon, who denied a motion to preclude expert reports despite non-compliance with the

    A recent decision from the First Department reminds us that New York courts are not sympathetic to duress claims when the alleged acts or threatened acts fall within the ambit of the defendant’s rights under a valid agreement.

    In Zhang Chang v Phillips Auctioneers LLC, the First Department affirmed Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Jennifer

    A few weeks ago, I blogged about the Arco Acquisitions, LLC, v Tiffany Plaza LLC et al. decision, in which Suffolk County Commercial Division Justice Elizabeth Hazlitt Emerson held that the plaintiff’s fraud claims were barred by the specific disclaimer provisions contained in the parties’ agreement to purchase commercial real property.

    A recent decision from

    “Relevant statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are afforded absolute protection so that those discharging a public function may speak freely to zealously represent their clients without fear of reprisal or financial hazard.”

    Professionals, including attorneys, and individuals may find themselves subject to a defamation lawsuit. Attorneys, however, may sometimes rely on absolute or

    A cause of action accrues, triggering the commencement of the statute of limitations period, when “all of the factual circumstances necessary to establish a right of action have occurred, so that the plaintiff would be entitled to relief” (Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.).  The “continuing wrong” doctrine is an exception