-
Posted: October 28, 2026
Written by: Channing J. TurnerCourt Permits Pro Se Individual To Sue As Assignee Of LLC’s Claims, Overruling Objection That LLC’s Must Appear In Court Through Legal Counsel
On October 6, 2026, in Webb v. Infusion Capital Group LLC, Index No. 659826/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division denied defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended complaint brought by an individual appearing pro se, both on his own behalf and as assignee of a limited liability company’s claims. The action arises from an alleged agreement to purchase future receivables from RP Palm Beach LLC, which does business as Roxy’s Pub. Plaintiff John Webb sought declarations that defendants lacked authority to enforce the agreement or, alternatively, that the agreement was a criminally usurious loan. Defendants moved under C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(3) and 321(a), arguing that the LLC lacked capacity because it had not obtained a certificate of authority to do business in New York, and that a corporate entity may not appear without counsel. The Court found that defendants offered no evidence that the LLC was doing business in New York, and it also denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions. On the pro se issue, the Court explained: Read More
-
Posted: October 26, 2026
Written by: Channing J. TurnerCommercial Division Adopts New Rule 14-b Requiring Specifics In Requests For Discovery Cost Shifting
On October 19, 2026, the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts signed an administrative order (AO/306/2026) adding new Rule 14-b to the Commercial Division Rules (22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 202.70), effective December 1, 2026. The new rule provides: Read More
-
Posted: October 23, 2026
Written by: Thomas A. KissaneCourt Requires Notice and Proof of Receipt Before Compelling Nonparty Compliance with Post Judgment Subpoenas
On September 29, 2026, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division held that a judgment creditor seeking to compel a nonparty’s compliance with a post-judgment subpoena must give the nonparty notice of the requested relief and establish the nonparty’s actual receipt of the subpoena. The case is ACM MCC VI LLC v. Able Liquidation Three, Index No. 657261/2019. Read More
-
Posted: October 21, 2026
Written by: Thomas A. KissaneFirst Department Holds Performance of Existing Contractual Duties Does Not Establish Reliance for Fraud
On October 8, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department held that a plaintiff does not plead detrimental reliance for fraud where the conduct allegedly induced by the misrepresentations consists of pre-existing contractual obligations. The case is Iberdrola Energy Projects v. Oaktree Capital Mgt., L.P., Case No. 2025-03514, affirming judgment by Justice Jennifer G. Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division, Index No. 652514/2021. Read More
-
Posted: October 19, 2026
Written by: Thomas A. KissaneCourt Holds Proven Fraudulent Conveyance Does Not Support Damages Duplicating Contract Recovery
On September 29, 2026, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division held that proof of a fraudulent conveyance does not support a separate damages recovery where the creditor’s loss is already addressed by its breach-of-contract claim. The case is Borden LP v. Sixth St. Partners, LLC, Index No. 657398/2017. Read More
-
Posted: October 16, 2026
Written by: Ian WeissIn Veil-Piercing Claim, First Department Holds “Transaction Attacked” Does Not Need To Be Transaction From Which Judgment Debtor’s Liability Arose
On September 24, 2026, in UBS Securities LLC v. Dondero, Index No. 650744/23, Case No. 2025-02596, the Appellate Division, First Department, largely affirmed an order of Justice Melissa A. Crane of the New York County Commercial Division denying motions to dismiss a turnover petition asserting a veil-piercing claim. UBS, a judgment creditor, alleged that James Dondero dominated the judgment debtors and used that domination to strip them of their assets and render them judgment proof. A veil-piercing plaintiff must show that the owner dominated the entity “in respect to the transaction attacked.” Dondero argued that the transaction attacked was the underlying transaction that gave rise to UBS’s judgments (the Knox Transaction), and that UBS had not alleged that he dominated the judgment debtors with respect to that transaction. The Court disagreed, explaining: Read More
-
Posted: October 14, 2026
Written by: Ian WeissCourt Holds Premature Notice Exercising Option Invalid Under New York’s Strict Construction Rule
On September 8, 2026, in ET JV Holdings, LLC v. TBH-ASL BSA Member LLC, Index No. 659784/2024, Justice Anar Rathod Patel of the New York County Commercial Division granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The operating agreement of a joint venture gave designer Elie Tahari a one-time right to buy out his co-member’s interest for $50 million “by providing written notice” during a 120-day period beginning December 29, 2024. Plaintiffs, Tahari and his affiliates, served the notice on December 2, 2024, about four weeks early. Defendants rejected it and began pursuing a sale to a third-party buyer at a $140 million valuation, which a valid buy-back would have defeated. Plaintiffs argued that the early notice should nevertheless be deemed effective, requiring defendants to sell their interest to Tahari, because no New York authority holds an early notice defective, and because defendants had actual notice and suffered no prejudice. The Court determined that the notice had to be served within the 120-day period and held the December 2 notice invalid. As a result, defendants were not required to sell their interest to Tahari on the strength of that notice. In reaching that holding, the Court explained: Read More
-
Posted: October 12, 2026
Written by: Ian WeissFirst Department Holds Each Player’s Concussion Claim Is At Least One Separate “Occurrence” Under NFL’s Liability Policies
On October 1, 2026, in Discover Property & Casualty Co. v. National Football League, Index No. 652933/12, Case Nos. 2025-03691 and 2025-03200, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that each former player’s claim resolved in the NFL’s concussion settlement constituted at least one separate “occurrence” under the NFL’s liability insurance policies, whose limits applied per occurrence. The NFL’s insurer, TIG, argued that all of the players’ injuries arose from a single occurrence—NFL play—so that only one set of limits applied. New York courts determine the number of occurrences under the “unfortunate event” test, which asks “whether there is a close temporal and spatial relationship between the incidents giving rise to injury or loss, and whether the incidents can be viewed as part of the same causal continuum, without intervening agents or factors.” Applying that test, the Court explained: Read More
-
Posted: October 9, 2026
Written by: Samuel L. ButtFirst Department Holds Certificate Holder Whose Certificates Had Zero Principal Balance Could Not Satisfy No-Action Clause’s Voting Rights Threshold
On August 27, 2026, in Matter of HBK Master Fund L.P. v. NewRez LLC, 252 AD3d 438, Index No. 656286/23, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed an order of Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division dismissing a certificate holder’s claims against the servicer of a residential mortgage-backed securities trust. Read More
-
Posted: October 7, 2026
Written by: Samuel L. ButtDivided First Department Holds That “Commits To Raise” Language Does Not Require A Binding Agreement
On September 22, 2026, in Aurelius Capital Master Ltd. v. Hertz International Limited, Index No. 654710/21, Case No. 2025-00690, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a judgment of Justice Jennifer G. Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division that, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs approximately $15.9 million. Read More
-
Posted: October 5, 2026
Written by: Samuel L. ButtCourt Permits Limited Post-Note Of Issue Discovery Despite Untimely Motion To Vacate Note Of Issue
On September 2, 2026, in Python Financial Solutions, Inc. v. SDCK I LLC, Index No. 653659/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed granted in part defendant’s unopposed motion to vacate the note of issue, permitting limited post-note of issue discovery without vacating the note of issue. Read More
-
Posted: October 2, 2026
Written by: Channing J. TurnerCourt Holds Indenture’s No-Action Clause Does Not Bar Minority Noteholders’ Claims To Enforce Their Individual Consent Rights
On March 17, 2026, in CPPIB Credit Invs. II Inc. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., Index No. 654398/2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss claims arising out of an “up-tiering” transaction. CPPIB and plaintiff-intervenor Thebes held notes issued by Lions Gate under a $1 billion indenture. They allege that Legacy Lions Gate obtained the consent of a majority of noteholders to a supplemental indenture that, among other things, released guarantors associated with one part of the company’s business—a successful “Studio Business”—but left the non-consenting minority with notes backed only by another struggling part of the company’s business. Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs had not complied with the indenture’s no-action clause, which bars a holder from pursuing any remedy unless holders of at least 25 percent in principal amount have first directed the trustee to sue. Plaintiffs conceded that they had not satisfied that condition. Surveying several cases, and acknowledging that key language from one case was arguably dicta, the Court explained: Read More
-
Posted: September 30, 2026
Written by: Channing J. TurnerCourt Grants Counsel’s Motion To Withdraw But Declines To Stay the Action
On August 20, 2026, in A & L 444 LLC v. Ankura Trust Co., LLC, Index No. 653212/2023, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division granted plaintiffs’ counsel leave to withdraw and denied counsel’s request for a stay of the proceedings while its clients sought new counsel. Baker Hostetler LLP moved under C.P.L.R. 321(b)(2) to be relieved as counsel for plaintiffs, stating that its clients had failed to satisfy outstanding legal fees and to comply with agreed payment arrangements. Counsel also asked the court to stay the matter so that plaintiffs could find replacement counsel. Defendants opposed the stay, arguing that it would delay resolution and prejudice them, and pointing to plaintiffs’ alleged violations of multiple court-ordered discovery deadlines. Plaintiffs filed no opposition to their attorneys’ motion. Read More
-
Posted: September 28, 2026
Written by: Channing J. TurnerCourt Dismisses Fraud Claims For M&A Where Buyer Offered No Evidence Of The Acquired Company’s Actual Value
On August 28, 2026, in VXI Lux Holdco S.A R.L. v. SIC Holdings, LLC, Index No. 652064/2017, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division granted in part defendants’ motions for summary judgment, dismissing the buyer’s fraud claims for failure to raise a triable issue of monetary loss. VXI acquired all of the equity in Symbio S.A., a Luxembourg technology and software engineering company, under a November 2014 share purchase agreement. VXI alleged that the selling shareholders inflated Symbio’s earnings and concealed undisclosed liabilities, including shortfalls in social insurance and housing fund payments owed by Symbio’s Chinese subsidiary, and it sued for fraud and for breach of the agreement’s representations and warranties. On the fraud claims, VXI sought damages measured by diminution in value—the difference between the price it paid and what Symbio was actually worth. But VXI never obtained a contemporaneous appraisal, and its damages expert conceded that he had not performed an independent valuation but had instead built his analysis on VXI’s own EBITDA-multiple approach at the time of purchase. In granting summary judgment dismissing the fraud claims, the Court explained: Read More
-
Posted: September 25, 2026
Written by: Thomas A. KissaneCourt Dismisses Fraud and Fiduciary Duty Claims as Duplicative of Contract, Sustains Fraudulent Inducement Claim
On January 25, 2026, Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division granted in part a motion to dismiss counterclaims arising from an investment-advisory relationship, dismissed fraud and fiduciary-duty theories that duplicated the parties’ contract, and sustained a fraudulent-inducement theory based on alleged pre-contract misrepresentations. The case is Psalms Creative, LLC v. Beacon Investment Holdings LLC, Index No. 650934/2025. Read More
-
Posted: September 23, 2026
Written by: Thomas A. KissaneCourt Rejects Attempt to Discovery to Support Challenge to Arbitration Award
On March 2, 2026, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division denied a petition to vacate an arbitration award and a related request for discovery, holding that the petitioner could not use the vacatur proceeding to revisit discovery issues that the arbitral tribunal had considered and rejected. The case is Shell NA LNG LLC v. Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC, Index No. 659637/2025. Read More
-
Posted: September 21, 2026
Written by: Thomas A. KissaneDenial of Default Judgment Where Defendant Denied Receiving Summons and Complaint Affirmed
On July 9, 2026, the First Department unanimously affirmed Commercial Division Justice Robert R. Reed’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment and grant of defendant’s motion for additional time to answer, holding that Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in light of New York’s strong public policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits. The case is G-Unit Books, Inc. v Tompkins, 251 A.D.3d 424 (1st Dep’t 2026) affirming a March 2026 order in Index No. 654265/2025. Read More
-
Posted: September 16, 2026
Written by: Ian WeissFirst Department Enforces Nonrecourse Provision To Bar Interference Claim Based On Conduct Serving Legitimate Economic Self-Interest
On September 3, 2026, in Jefferies LLC v. Mountain State Energy Holdings LLC, Index No. 650599/25, the Appellate Division, First Department dismissed a tortious interference claim against a nonparty to the underlying agreement, based on the agreement’s nonrecourse provision. Read More
-
Posted: September 14, 2026
Written by: Ian WeissFirst Department Holds Consequential Damages Waiver Does Not Reach Owner’s Direct Damages
On September 10, 2026, in Gamma USA, Inc. v. Pavarini McGovern, LLC, Index No. 655472/23, Case No. 2025-01311, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously modified an order of Justice Melissa A. Crane of the New York County Commercial Division that had limited a counterclaim to a $3.6 million liquidated damages cap. Read More
-
Posted: September 11, 2026
First Department Affirms Dismissal Of Legal Malpractice Claim Where Alleged Causation Was Speculative
On March 10, 2026, in Gans v. Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC, 247 AD3d 456, Index No. 152695/24, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order of Justice Anar Rathod Patel, which dismissed a legal malpractice complaint and denied leave to amend. Read More
