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
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
Commercial Division Rule 11-f establishes that a party may serve a notice or subpoena on any legal or commercial entity. Upon receiving this notice, the responding party must then designate and produce a corporate representative for the deposition, who is prepared to testify about information known or reasonably available to the entity concerning topics listed in the deposition notice. While a corporate representative deposition may serve as a great discovery tool, it may also serve as a dangerous trap. In a recent decision from the Manhattan Commercial Division, Justice Andrea Masley reminds us that parties who attempt to depose an additional corporate representative of the same entity are fighting a losing battle.Continue Reading Commercial Division Says “No Chance” on “Second Chance” Deposition of a Corporate Representative
When the Court orders you to attend a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) class on civility “for the harm [you’ve] done to the [legal] profession”– not to mention issues you five-figures in sanctions – you know you’ve done something very, very wrong. And that’s exactly what happened last month when Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Andrea Masley
“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
If supermodel Tyra Banks has taught us anything about the modeling industry, it’s that the competition is fierce. Unfortunately, one Manhattan-based modeling agency and former agent aren’t learning this lesson on the runway—they’re learning it in a courtroom.
In a recent decision, the First Department upheld a portion of Justice Andrea Masley’s Order
As readers of this blog know by now, we here at New York Commercial Division Practice frequently post on new, proposed, and/or amended rules of practice in the Commercial Division. Just last month, for example, my colleague Viktoriya Liberchuk posted on the Advisory Council’s recent proposal to amend ComDiv Rule 6 (“Form of Papers”) to
Our parents taught us to think before we speak. That lesson is especially important when words or conduct could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond what was previously agreed upon in a subcontract agreement.
In a recent case before Justice Andrea Masley, Corporate Electrical Technologies, Inc. v. Structure Tone, Inc. et al.
Following the lead of several federal courts, hyperlinks in legal briefs in the Commercial Division appear to be well on the way! The Commercial Division Advisory Council (“Advisory Council”) has announced a new proposal, which was put out for public comment, mandating hyperlinks. The proposed amendment to Rule 6 of the Commercial Division Rules