- Posted: November 7, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner, Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. KissaneIssue Of Fact Existed As To Sufficiency Of Default Notice Based On Parties’ Discussions
On October 10, 2025, Justice Andrea Masley denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on its claim for wrongful termination in Pizzarotti, LLC v. FPG Maiden Lane, LLC, Index No. 651697/2019. The action arose from a construction project on Maiden Lane in New York City. Pizzarotti asserted that its termination from the construction project was wrongful because it was not provided with a meaningful opportunity to cure. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: November 5, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. ButtDefendant’s Claim That Plaintiff Failed To Mitigate Damages Did Not Preclude Summary Judgment In Lieu of Complaint
On October 3, 2025, in Phillips Auctioneers LLC v. Mimran, Index No. 653994/2025, Justice Melissa A. Crane granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a third-party guarantee pertaining to a Jackson Pollock work pursuant to which defendant was required to purchase the work for $14.5 million if certain conditions of sale were not met.. The conditions of sale were not met and Mimran failed to pay for the work. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: November 3, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Joshua Wurtzel, Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. KissanePreliminary Injunction Denied Because Money Damages Do Not Establish Irreparable Harm
On October 3, 2025, in Lego Summit Co. Ltd. v. YWA-Amsterdam LLC, Index No. 654004/2025, Justice Andrea Masley denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from dissipating certain funds as defined in the first-named defendant’s LLC agreement. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: November 3, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Channing J. Turner, Joshua Wurtzel, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. ButtCourt Declines To Vacate Decision Granting Summary Judgment In Lieu Of Complaint Or Stay Entry Of Judgment Based On Alleged Defects In Service And Attorney Representation
On July 9, 2025, Justice Andrea Masley rejected several defendants’ arguments that defects in service of process and ineffective attorney representation warranted vacating the Court’s order granting summary judgment in lieu of complaint or staying entry of a judgment. In MF1 2022-FL9 LLC v. Shmuel Haikins, et al., Index No. 654647/2023, defendants had failed to appear in response to the lawsuit and the Court had granted judgment to plaintiff. Defendants then appeared and moved to vacate the Court’s order and stay entry of judgment on the basis that service had not been effective, as to one party, and counsel had failed to appear as instructed, as to another. The Court rejected these arguments, explaining: Read More
- Posted: October 29, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Channing J. Turner, Joshua Wurtzel, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. ButtIn Construction Case, The Failure To Properly Replace OFAC-Sanctioned Managers of Development Companies May Have Breached Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing In Operating Agreements
On September 16, 2015, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied the portion of owner and developer defendants’ motion for summary judgment against a claim brought by minority members on the theory that the developers had not properly replaced the managers of the development companies when the original managers were sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). In D&V Realty LLC, et al., v. Mikahil Vasilyevich Klyukin, et al., Index No. 656782/2022, Mikhail Klyukin beneficially owned various managers of the development companies. However, when OFAC sanctioned Klyukin in February 2022, these entities became OFAC-blocked entities by operation of law. The managers were replaced. However, plaintiffs claimed that the replacements were also owned by Klyukin, which caused more problems, and a failure to timely appoint appropriate replacement managers caused them harm. The Court upheld plaintiffs’ claim on a theory of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the operating agreements. The Court explained: Read More
Load More
