- Posted: May 30, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Fraud Claim Dismissed, and Plaintiffs Sanctioned, When Contemporaneous Communications Showed Plaintiffs Did Not Rely on Alleged Misrepresentation
On April 25, 2025, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Landau v. DGital Media LLC, Index No. 654067/2019, granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim and awarding attorneys' fees and costs against plaintiffs, because plaintiffs' own contemporaneous communications showed that they did not rely on defendants' alleged misrepresentation, holding: Read More
- Posted: May 29, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Commercial Division Rules Amended to Require Parties to Make Initial Disclosures
On May 6, 2025, the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts signed an administrative order adding a new Rule 11-h to the Commercial Division Rules, requiring that, at the outset of a case, parties serve initial discovery disclosures, similar to what is currently required in federal practice. Read More
- Posted: May 23, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Grants Motion To Compel Arbitration
On May 5, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in Suncroft Capital, LLC v. Local.House International, Inc., Index No. 659060/2024. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: May 21, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Scrivener’s Error Does Not Preclude Summary Judgment In Lieu Of Complaint
On April 28, 2025, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the borrower and guarantor in PFNGT LLC v. Liquid Capital LLC, Index No. 654595/2024. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: May 19, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claims As Duplicative Of Breach Of Contract Claims
On March 31, 2025, Justice Melissa A. Crane denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary claims in G.O.C. Invs. Co. Inc. v. Boaz Bagbag, Index No. 650785/2024. Plaintiff claimed, in essence, that defendants fraudulently induced G.O.C. to invest millions of dollars to create two jointly owned companies but defendants improperly took funds belonging to or owed to the companies. As to the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claims, the Court explained: Read More
Load More
