- Posted: October 8, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Channing J. Turner, Joshua Wurtzel, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. ButtCourt Denies Motions For Summary Judgment In Derivative Action
On September 9, 2025, in 111 West 57th Investment LLC v. 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC, Index No. 655031/2017, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and also denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: October 6, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Thomas A. Kissane, Channing J. TurnerRule 25-a Relating To Virtual Evidence Courtrooms Added To Commercial Division Rules
By Administrative Order, dated September 30, 2025, Commercial Division Rule 25-a was added to the Commercial Division Rules, effective November 10, 2025. The new rule, relating to Virtual Evidence Courtrooms, reads as follows: Read More
- Posted: October 3, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Jeffrey M. Eilender, Joshua WurtzelCourt Denies Motion To Disqualify Counsel Based On Alleged Concurrent Representation Where The First Representation Was “Effectively Over” Before The Second Commenced
On July 9, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok denied a defendant’s motion to disqualify his prior counsel, Baker & Hostetler LLP, from representing the other side in a case against it. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Harman Connected Services, Inc., Index No. 659609/2024, Baker previously represented Defendant Harman Connected Services in a lawsuit against a third party and had not yet formally received approval to withdraw from that lawsuit at the time it filed a lawsuit on AT&T’s behalf against Harman. Nevertheless, the Court noted that the prior case had been dismissed about eight months before the instant lawsuit had been filed. As a result, the Court concluded that the prior representation was “effectively over” long before. Read More
- Posted: October 1, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Thomas A. Kissane, Jeffrey M. Eilender, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. TurnerCourt Denies Motion To Vacate Default Judgment Where Defendant Claims He Was Never Served With Process
On August 6, 2025, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied a defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment based upon the jurisdictional objection of lack of service of process. In Francesco Marcello v. MK Cuisine Global LLC, et al., Index No. 654805/2022, defendant Matthew Kenney moved for an order vacating a default judgment entered against him because, among other things, he said he had never been served. However, the Court pointed to an affidavit of service stating that a process server had left the summons and complaint with a person of suitable age and discretion at Kenney’s place of business and mailed a copy pursuant to CPLR 308(2). The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: September 29, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Channing J. Turner, Joshua Wurtzel, Samuel L. ButtCourt Dismisses Tortious Interference Claim Brought Against Corporate Officer For Lack Of Allegations Supporting Malice
On July 28, 2025, Justice Margaret A. Chan dismissed a claim for tortious interference with contract brought against a corporate officer due to a lack of allegations suggesting the officer was motivated “solely by malice.” In EMC Presents Delphi LLC v. Delphi Studios LLC, et al., Index No. 655192/2024, Plaintiff EMC sued Delphi Studios in connection with the failed financing of an entertainment business venture. One of EMC’s claims alleged that Andrea Jacobs, a principal at Delphi Studios, tortiously interfered with EMC’s financing contract and relationship with a third party financer. The Court held, however, that EMC had failed to meet the “enhanced pleading standard” triggered by Jacobs’s status as a corporate officer at Delphi Studios. The Court explained: Read More
Load More
