- Posted: September 12, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Denies Motion To Vacate Decision Granting Motion To Dismiss Based On Law Office Failure
On July 17, 2025, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied defendant’s motion to vacate the Court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Counterclaims in JG Group Holdings LLC v. Kahlon, Index No. 6521966/2020. Defendant sought to vacate the Court’s decision, arguing that the motion was unopposed due to excusable law office failure – specifically, mis-calendaring the filing deadline. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: September 10, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Denies Motion To Lift Restraining Notices
On August 1, 2025, in Manorhaven Capital LLC v. Marc J. Bern & Partners, LLP, Index No. 654869/2022, Justice Andrew Borrok denied the motion of non-parties to vacate restraining notices served by the Judgment Creditor Plaintiff so the non-parties could pay lawyers and operate the Defendant’s business but not pay their own loan down or otherwise facilitate a foreclosure sale. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: September 8, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Requires Withdrawal Of Claims Filed In Another Jurisdiction
On August 4, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok required defendant to withdraw all claims filed in Philadelphia that arose out of the License Agreement at issue or be held in contempt in Orphion Therapeutics, Inc. v. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia et al., Index No. 655222/2024. The Court explained: Read More
- Posted: September 5, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Orders Referee To Determine Whether Party Has Sufficient Cash To Comply With Order Requiring Deposit Into Escrow Or Should Be Held In Contempt
On July 10, 2025, Justice Andrea Masley ordered a referee to conduct hearings into whether a party who had been ordered to deliver $54,205.53 to his attorney to be held in escrow during post-judgment proceedings could be held in contempt despite allegedly lacking the funds to comply. In Raza Khan v. Vishal Garg, et al., Index No. 65233/2013, a judgment had been entered against Khan but it needed to be corrected to reflect the amount that would be paid to each Defendant. Until that issue was decided, the Court ordered Khan to deliver the judgment amount to his attorney to be held in escrow. Khan failed to do so and claimed he did not have sufficient funds. Read More
- Posted: September 3, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Prohibits Defendant From Using The Terms “Stray” And “Handful” To Describe The Number Of Allegedly Fraudulent Telemarketing Calls As Punishment For Destroying Evidence
On July 8, 2025, Justice Andrea Masley clarified an earlier decision imposing sanctions for spoliation that included prohibiting a defendant from using the terms “stray” and “handful” during trial to describe the number of allegedly fraudulent telemarketing calls. In Earthlink, LLC v. Charter Communications Operating LLC, Index No. 654332/2020, Charter Communications was found to have destroyed evidence including recordings of calls that its call center employees made to Earthlink customers, allegedly falsely informing those customers that Earthlink was out of business. In response to a motion for reargument, the Court clarified that it would allow Charter Communications to use the terms “stray” and “handful” during closing argument but would not allow it to use them during presentation of evidence to the jury. The Court explained: Read More
Load More
