Blogs

Monthly Archives: September 2020

Posted: September 30, 2020

Hyperlinking Now Mandatory in the Commercial Division

On September 29, 2020, Chief Administrative Judge Marks issued AO/133/20, which makes hyperlinking to previously-filed NYSEF documents mandatory and requires that “[u]nless otherwise directed by the Court or provided in the Court’s individual rules, all text in briefs and affidavits, including footnotes, shall use proportionally spaced 12-point serif typeface.” The implementation of mandatory hyperlinking will... Read more »

Posted: September 28, 2020

Court Bars Party From Changing its Arguments Based on Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel

On September 15, 2020, Justice Ostrager of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, 2020 NY Slip Op. 33030(U), barring a party from changing its factual arguments on summary judgment based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, explaining: At the outset of... Read more »

Posted: September 27, 2020

Court Dismisses Petition to Dissolve LLC Because LLC Was Able to Conduct Business

On September 9, 2020, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Lazar v. Attena LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op. 33003(U), dismissing a petition to dissolve an LLC because the LLC was able to conduct business, explaining: Respondents argue that petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie case for... Read more »

Posted: September 26, 2020

Answer Struck Because of Defendant’s Failure Appear at Court Conferences or Respond to Discovery Demands

On September 11, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Disoni LLC v. Montas, 2020 NY Slip Op. 33028(U), striking a defendant’s answer for failure to appear at court conferences or respond to discovery demands, explaining: Rule 12 of the Rules of the Commercial Division provides the failure... Read more »

Posted: September 25, 2020

Demand for a Bill of Particulars Vacated Because it Was Being Used as a Discovery Device

On September 8, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Orentreich v. John B. Murray Architect, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op. 32944(U), vacating a demand for a bill of particulars because it was being used as a discovery device, explaining: The bill of particulars has been abolished in... Read more »

Posted: September 24, 2020

Law Firm Disqualified Because of Acquired Law Firm’s Prior Representation of Opposing Party

On September 8, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Goren v. Barnett, 2020 NY Slip Op. 32952(U), disqualifying a law firm because a firm that it had acquired previously had represented an opposing party, explaining: From 2010 to approximately 2013, the law firm of Amstein & Lehr... Read more »

Posted: September 23, 2020

Mariah Carey Entitled to Sanctions and Adverse Inference After Defendant Destroyed Relevant Evidence

On September 11, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision addressing when a party is entitled to sanctions and an adverse inference at trial for the destruction of relevant evidence. In Carey v. Shakhnazarian, 2020 NY Slip Op 51040 (U), Justice Borrok confirmed longstanding New York precedent that a... Read more »

Posted: September 23, 2020

Performance or Occurrence of a Condition Precedent in a Contract Need not be Pleaded

On September 8, 2020, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in CSC Holdings, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op. 32956(U), holding that the performance or occurrence of a condition precedent in a contract need not be pleaded, explaining: Samsung further argues that this claim should... Read more »

Posted: September 22, 2020

Undisclosed Principal May Sue on a Contract Made in its Agent’s Name

On September 8, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Artemus USA LLC v. Leila Taghinia-Milani Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op. 32958(U), holding that an undisclosed principal may sue on a contract made in its agent’s name, explaining: The Defendants argue that all claims asserted on behalf of... Read more »