Commercial Division Blog: Current Developments in the Commercial Divisions of the New York State Courts

  • Posted: June 21, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Labor Law Claim
    On May 5, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok denied defendant’s motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim under New York Labor Law. In FF Venture Capital, LLC v. Adam J. Plotkin, RDWC, LLC, Index No. 651314/2023, defendant claimed that plaintiff withheld his compensation and alleged violation of Labor Law § 193. The Court explained that such allegations stated a claim: Read More
  • Posted: June 19, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog Court Holds That Plaintiff Has Standing Because Note And Guaranty Were Properly Assigned
    On April 29, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff in Lapis Advisers, LP et al. v. Coal Capital Ephrata, LLC, Index No. 650128/2021 sought summary judgment for failure to repay amounts on a note assigned to plaintiff. The Court concluded that plaintiff had standing, explaining: Read More
  • Posted: June 17, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Breach Of Fiduciary Claim For Failure To Allege Damages
    On April 12, 2024, Justice Margaret A. Chan granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants in Murphy v. PHG Funding LLC et al., Index No. 656158/2021, alleged counterclaims arising out a settlement with plaintiff and transactions related thereto. As to defendants’ counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty, the Court explained: Read More
  • Posted: June 14, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog Attorney’s Mistaken Opinion Letter Supports Claim Against Him For Negligent Misrepresentation In Transaction Regardless Of The Attorney’s Intent
    On April 25, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok upheld a claim for negligent misrepresentation brought against an attorney who authored a mistaken opinion letter in connection with the purchase of an interest in a real estate company. In iintoo Cortland Bronx New York, L.P., v. Daniel Wenger, et al., Index No. 151947/2023, the defendant delivered a legal opinion letter to the purchaser, representing that, based on due diligence that he had completed “to [his] satisfaction,” the seller had the authority to execute the transaction and grant the investment interest. After closing, however, the party learned that opinions expressed in the letter were flawed and the seller had restructured in a way that potentially rendered the investment void. The defendant pointed out that his opinion was flawed only because certain documents had been concealed from him at the time he authored the letter. He therefore moved to dismiss the claim by arguing the plaintiff had failed to plead the requisite intent. The Court rejected this argument, explaining: Read More
  • Posted: June 12, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog Court Denies AT&T’s Request For $7 Million Bond To Secure Claims Against Party With History Of Refusing To Pay “Even A Radish’s Worth” of Judgments
    On April 30, 2024, Justice Andrea Masley denied AT&T’s request for a $7 million bond to secure claims it had brought against a party with an acknowledged history of refusing to pay judgments and insisting on judgment enforcement procedures. In Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. DE C.V., et al., v. AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V., et al., Index No. 652411/2022, the Court noted that it has inherent authority to impose a bond “to ensure that litigation proceed[s] efficiently and that the parties adhere[] to their obligations of litigating in good faith.” The Court acknowledged Grupo Salina’s “history of refusing to pay judgments and making public statements espousing its pride for failing to pay its judgments,” including a statement by its chairman that he “won’t pay even a radish’s worth.” Nevertheless, it concluded that a bond was not warranted. The Court explained: Read More
  • Load More