Commercial Division Blog

Posted: August 11, 2017 / Categories Commercial, Appeals, Upcoming Events

Upcoming Arguments in the Court of Appeals in September

Upcoming arguments in the Court of Appeals that may be of interest to commercial litigators include:

  1. Princes Point v. Muss Development (to be argued Tuesday, September 5, 2017) (Vendor and Purchaser--Contract for Sale of Real Property--Whether prospective purchaser of real property commits anticipatory breach of contract by commencing an action against sellers for rescission of the contract before the closing date--Whether sellers are required to establish that they are ready, willing and able to close after buyer's anticipatory breach in order to retain the deposit and certain other payments as liquidated damages.”). See our previous post about the First Department’s decision here.
  2. Excess Line Association of New York (ELANY) v. Waldorf & Associates (to be argued Thursday, September 7, 2017) (“Parties--Capacity to Sue--Governmental entities--Whether plaintiff association has capacity and standing to sue one of its members to compel compliance with its plan of operation or to recover stamping fees.”) See the Second Department’s decision here.
  3. Garthon Business v. Stein (to be argued Tuesday, September 12, 2017) (“Arbitration--Agreement to Arbitrate--Successive agreements--whether the Appellate Division correctly held that, as to claims that arose when the first agreement at issue was in force, the forum selection clause in the first agreement, which stated that disputes would be resolved in the courts of the United States of America, survived certain subsequent agreements that terminated prior agreements, contained merger clauses and clauses requiring arbitration of disputes--whether claims that otherwise would be subject to arbitration should be litigated in court because they are ‘inextricably bound’ to claims arising under the first agreement--whether court or arbitrators should decide issue of arbitrability; whether the Appellate Division correctly granted plaintiffs' motion for discovery on the issues of personal jurisdiction and alter ego.”). See our previous post on the First Department’s decision here.