Commercial Division Blog: Current Developments in the Commercial Divisions of the New York State Courts

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

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

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

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

On August 21, 2026, in Anexia, Inc. v. Horizon Data Solutions Ctr., LLC, Index No. 657444/2019, Justice Robert R. Reed granted plaintiff summary judgment dismissing defendant's counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Read More

On April 1, 2026, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division dismissed fraud claims by cooperative shareholders who alleged that an offering plan misrepresented the formula governing increases in the cooperative’s ground rent. The case is 269 W. 87th St. Apt. Corp. v QSB 267 Prop. Co., LLC, Index No. 655615/2024. Read More

On August 6, 2026, in Kelly v Munn Works, LLC, Index No. 64177/2026, Justice Gretchen Walsh of the Westchester County Commercial Division granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Read More

On July 15, 2026, in Magnetic Parts Trading Limited v National Air Cargo Group, Inc., Index No. 653266/2020, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of lease claim, in part because an issue of fact existed under the doctrine of prevention. Read More

On July 23, 2026, in CPIF Lending, LLC v Segal, Index No. 652592/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division held that a nonparty assignee had standing to move to substitute as plaintiff in an action for breach of guaranty. Read More

On July 2, 2026, in Tromer v. PEAK6 Insurtech Holdings LLC, Index No. 653530/2023, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division granted plaintiff’s renewed motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the “Earnout Amount” under the parties’ Unit Purchase Agreement could not be a negative number and that the plaintiff therefore did not owe the defendant any negative earnout. The agreement provided that “in no event shall the Earnout Amount be less than zero dollars,” but the defendant counterclaimed that two components later added to the formula could drive the Earnout Amount below zero, entitling it to a payment from the sellers. In a prior order, the Court had denied summary judgment to both sides and permitted limited discovery of the transaction counsel who drafted the agreement as to the clause's meaning. Read More

On July 2, 2026, in Tromer v. PEAK6 Insurtech Holdings LLC, Index No. 653530/2023, Justice Andrew Borrok granted plaintiff's renewed motion for partial summary judgment dismissing two of defendant's counterclaims. Read More

On May 11, 2026, in Jennie Enterprise, et al., v. Michael Shvo, et al., Index No. 653221/2024, Justice Andrea Masley denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding causes of action for civil RICO violations, RICO conspiracy, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. Read More

On June 13, 2026, in Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd., et al., v. New Tent, LLC, et al., Index No. 850240/2024, Justice Andrea Masley granted defendants’ motion for reargument, vacated the court’s prior summary judgment order, and ruled that the deed in lieu of foreclosure executed under the parties’ Forbearance Agreement must be treated as a mortgage under Real Property Law (“RPL”) § 320, requiring plaintiffs to proceed by foreclosure and sale. Read More

On May 21, 2026, in New Tent, LLC, et al, v. Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd., et al., Index No. 659251/2024, Justice Andrea Masley granted banks’ motions to dismiss claims that their threats to withhold funding and commence foreclosure created economic duress that should invalidate a forbearance agreement. Read More

On May 13, 2026, in Aircastle Ltd. v. Chubb European Group S.E., Index No. 654131/2022, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. Read More

On April 10, 2026, in I.B.I Volcano Investments LLC v. Apex South Creek IB, LLC, Index No. 655364/2025, Justice Melissa A. Crane of the New York County Commercial Division granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Read More

On May 5, 2026, in Samson MCA LLC v. DI Construction. LLC, Index No. E2024019427, Justice Daniel J. Doyle denied plaintiff’s motion under CPLR 3215(i) for entry of a default judgment and refused to enforce the parties’ stipulation of settlement. Plaintiff, a merchant cash advance funder, had purchased defendants’ future receivables under an agreement providing for attorneys’ fees calculated at 30% of the unremitted purchased amount. After defendants allegedly defaulted, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement that incorporated those fees into the settlement balance and separately provided for an additional 25% in attorneys’ fees on the unpaid indebtedness in the event of a further default. The Court held that the stacked percentage-based attorneys’ fees provisions in both the underlying agreement and the settlement stipulation were procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and refused to enforce them. In denying the motion, the Court explained: Read More

On March 24, 2026, Justice Andrew Borrok rejected defendant’s attempt to create a material issue of fact by reference to a dispute about the calculation of interest, where that subject was addressed in the parties’ contract. The case is Big Bus Tours Limited v. Twin America, LLC, Index No. 654028/2025. Read More

On March 10, 2026, Justice Melissa A. Crane granted summary judgment on a settlement agreement under CPLR 3213. The case is G.O.C. Investments Companies Inc. v. BSD Tree, Inc., Index No. 656001/2025. Read More

On March 31, 2026, in Guggenheim Securities, LLC v. Falcon’s Beyond Global, LLC, et al., Index No. 651585/2024, Justice Melissa A. Crane granted in part and denied in part dueling motions for summary judgment. The court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaims against its financial advisor for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable rescission, but denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on their breach of contract claims. The Court explained: Read More