- Posted: May 27, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane, Ian WeissCourt Refuses To Read ‘Country’ As ‘County’ To Correct Alleged Typo In Payment Bond’s Venue Provision
On May 7, 2026, in J&A Concrete Corp. v. Everest Reins. Co., Index No. 813988/25E, Justice Fidel E. Gomez granted defendants’ motion under CPLR 510 to change venue to Albany County. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the project’s payment bond required that suit be brought in Bronx County. The bond’s venue provision required that any suit be brought in the “State court [of] competent jurisdiction in and for the country or other political subdivision of the State in which the project, or any part thereof, is situated, or in the United States District Court for the district in which the project, or any part thereof, is situated, and not elsewhere.” (Emphasis added). Plaintiff argued that ‘country’ was a typographical error and should be read as ‘county.’ The Court declined to do so. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: May 22, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. Kissane, Ian Weiss, Channing J. TurnerCourt Denies Motion to Seal AI-Generated Competitive Research Report
On April 19, 2026, in AlphaSense, LLC v. Richards, Index No. 650202/2026, Justice Andrea Masley granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to seal two exhibits. Plaintiff sought to seal a report on defendant Daloopa, Inc.’s business performance that had been generated using plaintiff’s artificial-intelligence platform, as well as a “competitive intel” Slack channel post. Plaintiff argued that both documents contained proprietary, confidential, and commercially sensitive information. The Court denied sealing as to the AI-generated report, reasoning that the report concerned defendant Daloopa’s own business rather than plaintiff’s proprietary information; that the report carried a disclaimer acknowledging it was AI-generated, might contain inaccuracies, and instructing users to verify with original sources; and that plaintiff had routinely disseminated similar reports to prospective customers without any confidentiality designation. The Court granted sealing as to the Slack post, which referenced plaintiff’s large language model technology. In denying sealing of the AI-generated report, the Court explained: Read More
- Posted: May 20, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Ian Weiss, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. KissaneCourt Dismisses Foreign Defendant for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Despite Showing of Prior Control Over Alleged New York Agents
On April 20, 2026, in D & V Realty LLC v. Klyukin, Index No. 656782/2022, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted defendant Mikhail Klyukin’s motion to dismiss the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs—members of three Manhattan real-estate development LLCs—alleged that defendants effected an improper change in the management of those LLCs in February 2022, shortly before Klyukin was designated by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control as a Specially Designated National — a designation that, under OFAC’s 50%-ownership rule, also rendered the new management entities themselves blocked persons. Klyukin, a non-domiciliary, moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8). Plaintiffs invoked long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4) and submitted emails and WhatsApp messages from 2016 through 2019 showing that Klyukin had exercised veto authority over the development projects through co-defendants then operating in New York. The Court held that, although the record showed Klyukin had exercised control over alleged New York-based agents through 2019, plaintiffs had produced no evidence—despite nearly four years of discovery—that Klyukin caused or participated in the 2022 management changes underpinning their claims. The Court also held that Klyukin’s indirect interest in New York real estate, through corporate entities, did not satisfy CPLR 302(a)(4)’s requirement that the defendant personally own, use, or possess the property at issue. In dismissing the claims, the Court explained: Read More
- Posted: May 18, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Ian Weiss, Thomas A. KissaneCourt Limits Civil Contempt Fine to $250 Where Landlord Failed to Show Actual Loss
On April 16, 2026, in Core 5th Ave. LLC v. 711 Fifth Ave. Principal Owner LLC, Index No. 654976/2025, Justice Andrea Masley granted the landlord’s motion for civil contempt against the tenant but rejected the landlord’s request for a per diem financial penalty. The landlord moved under Judiciary Law §§ 753(A) and 773 for civil contempt and sanctions of $250 per day after the tenant admittedly failed to check government IDs of its members and their guests, in violation of a prior court order, for a nine-week period from December 15, 2025 until February 5, 2026, when the tenant purged the contempt by initiating an ID-checking program. The Court held that civil contempt fines are compensatory, not punitive, and that the landlord had failed to establish any compensable injury from the nine-week delay. The Court emphasized that the landlord had monitored and videotaped the tenant’s lobby check-in process for the entire nine-week period without objection — conduct the Court found undermined the landlord’s contention that the breach posed a security risk causing damage. The Court limited the financial penalty to a one-time $250 award, plus reimbursement for the cost of making the contempt motion (including attorneys’ fees, but expressly excluding the cost of the surveillance video). In limiting the financial penalty, the Court explained: Read More
- Posted: May 15, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Channing J. Turner, Ian Weiss, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. ButtCourt Declines To Order Production of Defendant’s Client List and Corporate Tax Records
On April 22, 2026, in Slice Wireless Services, LLC v. Yakubov, Index No. 656506/2017, Justice Robert R. Reed declined to require defendants to supplement their discovery responses and denied plaintiff’s requests for production of defendants’ client list and corporate tax records. Read More
- Posted: May 13, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. Kissane, Ian Weiss, Channing J. TurnerCourt Reforms Advertising Lease to Correct Scrivener’s Error That Gave Tenant Rather Than Landlord the Right To Terminate
On April 23, 2026, in Big City Outdoor, LLC v. JTRE 23 WS LLC, Index No. 530713/2023, Justice Reginald A. Boddie of the Kings County Commercial Division denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion in part, reforming the parties’ 2017 advertising agreement to substitute “Lessor” for “Lessee” in the termination provision. Read More
- Posted: May 8, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Ian Weiss, Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. Kissane, Channing J. TurnerAgreement To Negotiate Interest Waiver Does Not Require Adjustment Of Damages Where Good Faith Negotiation Did Not Lead To Agreement
On March 29, 2026, Justice Andrea Masley entered judgment for lender after an inquest. The case is FCS Advisors, LLC v. Imagelink SPE, LLC, Index No. 653077/2023. Read More
- Posted: May 6, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Channing J. Turner, Ian Weiss, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. ButtDispute Over Interest Calculations Insufficient To Avoid Summary Judgment When Resolved By Reference To Contract
On March 24, 2026, Justice Andrew Borrok rejected defendant’s attempt to create a material issue of fact by reference to a dispute about the calculation of interest, where that subject was addressed in the parties’ contract. The case is Big Bus Tours Limited v. Twin America, LLC, Index No. 654028/2025. Read More
- Posted: May 4, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Thomas A. Kissane, Ian Weiss, Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. TurnerSubsequent Agreement Does Not Prevent Application Of CPLR 3213 To Settlement Agreement
On March 10, 2026, Justice Melissa A. Crane granted summary judgment on a settlement agreement under CPLR 3213. The case is G.O.C. Investments Companies Inc. v. BSD Tree, Inc., Index No. 656001/2025. Read More
- Posted: May 1, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. Kissane, Channing J. Turner, Ian WeissClaims For Specific Performance, Tortious Interference, And Breach Of NDA Survive Summary Judgment In Dispute Over $180 Million Brooklyn Campus Sale
On March 3, 2026, Justice Melissa A. Crane issued a Decision and Order in 180 Remsen LLC v. St. Francis College, Index No. 653148/2023, denying the summary judgment motion brought by three affiliated defendants (Rockrose). Plaintiff 180 Remsen LLC had entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with St. Francis College to purchase its Brooklyn Heights campus for $180 million. When 180 Remsen raised a title objection and did not close on the time-of-the-essence closing date, the College terminated the PSA and sold the property to Rockrose. 180 Remsen sued Rockrose for specific performance, tortious interference with the PSA, and breach of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) Rockrose had signed when solicited by 180 Remsen’s broker as a potential equity investor. Read More
- Posted: April 29, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Ian Weiss, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. ButtCourt Imposes Spoliation Sanctions Against Cybersecurity Provider That Failed to Preserve Evidence of Its Alleged Monitoring Failures
On April 2, 2026, Justice Joel M. Cohen issued a Decision and Order in Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. v. SKOUT Monitoring, LLC, Index No. 650539/2022, granting plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions. GNY sued its security operations center provider, SKOUT, alleging SKOUT failed to detect and escalate suspicious activity preceding a ransomware attack on GNY’s systems. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found SKOUT’s failure to preserve Slack communications, Zendesk ticket data, and historical alarm data constituted gross negligence, and imposed an adverse inference and an award of attorneys’ fees. The court declined to strike SKOUT’s answer. A central issue was when SKOUT’s duty to preserve arose. SKOUT argued it was when GNY sent a formal preservation demand, but the court found the duty arose six months earlier, explaining: Read More
- Posted: April 27, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Ian Weiss, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. TurnerClaim Against Financial Advisor Survives Summary Judgment Based On Evidence Its Services Were “So Incompetent” They Were “Worse Than No Services At All”
On March 31, 2026, in Guggenheim Securities, LLC v. Falcon’s Beyond Global, LLC, et al., Index No. 651585/2024, Justice Melissa A. Crane granted in part and denied in part dueling motions for summary judgment. The court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaims against its financial advisor for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable rescission, but denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on their breach of contract claims. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: April 24, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. KissaneCourt Grants Motion To Certify Class
On March 28, 2026, in Engel v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., Index. No. 654556/2020, Justice Andrea Masley granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Having previously concluded that numerosity, commonality, typicality and superiority were established, the court addressed adequacy of representation. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: April 22, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. Kissane, Channing J. Turner, Joshua WurtzelCourt Denies Motion For Summary Judgment In Lieu Of Complaint Because Issue Of Fact Existed As To Standing
On March 24, 2026, in 1411 Bushwick Ave. NDB LLC v. Bracha, Index No. 655425/2025, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint as defendants raised issues as to standing. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: April 20, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Joshua Wurtzel, Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. KissaneCourt Grants Preliminary Injunction Preventing Defendants From Dissipating Assets
On March 24, 2026, in Aladyshev v. Starta Capital Mgt. II LLC, Index No. 659208/2025, Justice Andrew Borrok granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The action arose out of the alleged management and operation of Starta Capital Hybrid SPC Fund II Ltd. Specifically, the plaintiff-investors in the fund alleged that defendants exercised control over the Fund and its assets while failing to provide required financial disclosures and diverting or otherwise mishandling investor assets. The plaintiff-investors sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants from taking any corporate actions on behalf of the Fund, the Flagship SP Fund, the Coinvestment SP Fund, or Starta Capital Management II LLC, including dissolution, and freezing the Defendants’ (except Serge Milman) bank, brokerage, and custodial accounts to prevent further dissipation of assets. In granting the motion, the Court explained: Read More
- Posted: April 17, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane, Joshua WurtzelCourt Denies Foreign Individuals’ Request To Appear At Contempt Hearing Virtually, Requiring In-Person Attendance
On March 5, 2026, Justice Andrea Masley denied permission sought by two individuals located in Panama to appear virtually for a hearing on a motion seeking to hold them in contempt. In Glencore Ltd. v. Kamca Trading S.A., et al., Index No. 651244/2025, the Court had entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant companies from pursuing claims in a Panama lawsuit. The Court later granted a motion by the plaintiff holding those companies in contempt for failing to abide by the injunctions, and the Court directed agents of the companies to appear in-person for a hearing on violations of the Court’s orders. The Court denied a motion by the agents (the Kahns) to appear remotely, explaining: Read More
- Posted: April 15, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. Kissane, Channing J. Turner, Joshua WurtzelCourt Compels Party And Its E-Discovery Vendor To Return Hard Drive With Confidential Information Mistakenly Produced To Them In Discovery
On March 5, 2026, Justice Andrew Borrok granted a defendant’s motion for an order compelling the plaintiff to return a hard drive that contained a forensic image of a laptop with confidential information that was inadvertently produced during discovery. In Jesus Nunez-Unda v. Thibault Adrien, et al., Index No. 650971/2022, the defendant had turned over a forensic image of a laptop reflecting data at the time the plaintiff had ended his employment. However, this image also included confidential information that should have been withheld. The defendant moved for relief, which the Court granted. It explained: Read More
- Posted: April 13, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Channing J. Turner, Joshua Wurtzel, Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. KissaneCourt Vacates Landlord’s Notice Of Default On Lease Due To Incorrect Rent Commencement Date Identified In The Notice
On March 3, 2026, Justice Joel Cohen granted summary judgment, in part, against a commercial landlord and vacated the landlord’s notice of default to its tenant on the basis that the notice had incorrectly identified the rent commencement date. In JTRE 23 WS (Del) LLC v. CS Wall Street LLC, Index No. 654992/2021, a landlord moved for partial summary judgment and requested that a Yellowstone injunction granted to its tenant be vacated, while the tenant cross-moved. The landlord had issued a notice of default against its tenant due to, among other things, failure to pay rent beginning from a contractual rent commencement date. The tenant argued that, under the lease, the rent commencement date occurred thirty days after disbursement of certain downpayment funds, and the landlord had misidentified that date. Although there were many other disputes between the parties, some of which remained live, the Court found in favor of the tenant on this issue, explaining: Read More
- Posted: April 10, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Reargument Denied But Additional Time To Submit Appraisal Granted
On March 3, 2026, Justice Andrea Masley generally denied defendants’ motion to reargue a prior grant of summary judgment, but granted them a final extension to file an appraisal challenging the amount awarded plaintiff. The case is MF1 2022-FL9 LLC v. Haikins, Index No. 654647/2023. Read More
- Posted: April 6, 2026 / Commercial Division Blog
Preliminary Injunction Enforcing Restrictive Covenants Granted
On March 2, 2026, Justice Andrew Borrok granted a preliminary injunction enforcing non-compete and non-solicitation restrictive covenants in plaintiff’s operating agreement against a member, Shravan Reddy, and his co-defendant company, AplihsMD. The case is Excelusmle Review LLC v. Reddy, Shravan, Index No. 654449/2025. Read More
Load More
