A critical inquiry to be considered at the outset of any litigation is whether the party seeking relief is, in fact, a proper party to seek the court’s adjudication of the dispute. This concept is known as “standing,” which is a threshold determination to be made by the court, the absence of which warrants dismissal
Court explores the balance between a lawyer’s obligation to investigate the facts, and a lawyer’s reliance on what the client chooses to disclose or not disclose
Pursuant to Part 130 , attorneys are obligated to undertake an investigation of a case. But is an attorney responsible for ignorance of facts which the client neglected to disclose? “No,” says the Commercial Division.
In a recent decision by Justice Andrew Borrok, the Commercial Division discussed this very issue. In Morgan and Mendel
COVID coverage for business losses? “No,” says the first New York court to address the issue of whether a business interruption policy covers losses due to COVID-19
COVID-19 continues to generate litigation in a variety of contexts in the Commercial Division. Only two weeks ago did our colleague Madeline Greenblatt author a blog about COVID-19 not excusing commercial rental obligations. Now, in what appears to be a case of first impression in New York at least, Justice Timothy S. Driscoll ruled in
Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed: Commercial Division Finds Company’s Alleged Misrepresentations and Omissions During Stock Sale Non-Actionable Under Securities Law
Many of us have previously heard the expression that there is a fine line between fact and fiction. In securities law that holds especially true where companies that risk walking the “fine line” in their registration statements and prospectuses could find themselves liable to their stockholders.
In a recent decision, Justice Barry R. Ostrager granted
Legal Malpractice: Attorneys Cannot Be Blamed for Client’s Bad Decisions
Winning at the blame game is difficult to do. This holds e
specially true where the “blame game” is actually a claim for legal malpractice.
In a recent decision, the First Department affirmed Justice Sherwood’s Orders, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint against them. In Binn v. Muchnick, Golieb & Golieb, P.C.,
Beneficiary To A Trust Lacks Standing To Collect Unpaid Debt
The poet, Robert W. Service once wrote that “a promise made is a debt unpaid.” The question that remains is: Who gets to collect on that unpaid debt?
The issue of standing to collect on a debt owed to a beneficiary of a trust recently arose in Zachariou v Manios where plaintiff (a resident of
Shareholders Beware: Serve Pre-Litigation Demands or Be Prepared to Plead Demand Futility with Particularity
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
Dismissed: The Tragic, True Story of Direct and Derivative Claims Jumbled Together Beyond Recognition
Much has been written about the pleading requirements unique to shareholder derivative lawsuits. For example, a derivative complaint must allege the plaintiff’s standing as a shareholder at all relevant times. Demand upon the board, or its futility, must also be pled with sufficient particularity. But fundamentally, a complaint may not assert direct claims derivatively,
Back to Basics: Long-Arm Statute 101
Reflecting on your first year of law school, you begrudgingly remember learning about personal jurisdiction and the long-arm statute. As a commercial litigator, one of your first questions in representing a defendant should be: Does this court have jurisdiction over my client? If the answer to that question is no, then of course, you
Are There Heightened Pleading Requirements When Alleging Consequential Damages Against an Insurer in a Coverage Dispute? “No”, Says the First Department
Are “consequential damages” available on contract claim against an insurer in an action brought by an insured for breach of a commercial liability policy? In D.K. Prop., Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins., a recent case out of the First Department, the answer is a resounding “yes”. There, the complaint alleged two causes of