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

On November 18, 2025, in McWilliams v. Empire Agricultural Systems, LLC, Index No. 655727/2023, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted plaintiffs’ motion for an order awarding plaintiffs fees and costs for bringing certain discovery-related motions, but declined to strike Defendants’ answer. The Court explained: Read More

On September 10, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok denied a motion for summary judgment seeking to recover, as damages for breach of fiduciary duty, monies paid by a condominium and its insurer in settlement of a prior litigation that gave rise to plaintiffs’ fiduciary breach claim. The case is Gilbert v. Winston, Index No. 650374/2023. Read More

On October 6, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok granted a motion to compel defendants to cure defects in their production of substantially inaccessible electronic documents. The case is Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Calvano, Index No. 650912/2022. Read More

On August 7, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok resolved motions to compel brought by both sides in a dispute concerning a contemplated assignment of a bankruptcy claim. The case is Ceratosaurus Investors, LLC v. B2C Alternative Equity, LLC, Index No. 653758/2024. Read More

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

On January 31, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok granted a motion to substitute the plaintiff entities for their successors despite objections from the defendant concerning the substitution’s impact on ongoing discovery. In NG Crown 20 E. 46th Street LLC, et al. v. 18-20/22 East 46th Street LLC, Index No. 656817/2022, the Court overruled the defendant’s objections, explaining: Read More

On January 28, 2025, Justice Nancy M. Bannon granted a motion to quash a third-party subpoena seeking deposition testimony and the production of documents on the basis that the subpoenaing party had waited too long to seek the disclosures. In Arlus Owners LLC, et al. v. 829 Mad. Ave. LLC, et al., Index No. 653842/2022, the defendant served the subpoena on a real estate broker just before the deadline for completing discovery and filing the note of issue and certificate of readiness. The Court granted the motion to quash, explaining: Read More

On January 31, 2025, Justice Melissa A. Crane ordered in camera review of certain purportedly privileged documents in a legal malpractice case, noting that conflicting contentions over whether the plaintiff was ever actually a client of defendants presented a “catch-22 problem.” In Genesis Reoc Company LLC, et al. v. Stuart D. Poppel, et al., Index No. 156733/2017, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were their former attorneys and sued for malpractice. The attorneys had represented other parties in the underlying transactions at issue, and during discovery, they withheld communications with those clients on the basis of privilege. The attorneys also contended that the plaintiff had never actually been a client of theirs. The Court ordered in camera review to address the threshold question of whether an attorney-client relationship existed, explaining: Read More

On December 9, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok issued an order holding that a judgment debtor’s public denial of fraud allegations in a press release “based on and in reliance on advice received from outside counsel’s . . . investigation” waived its ability to assert attorney-client privilege over the investigation. The order in Altium Growth Fund, L.P., et al., v. Tingo Group, Inc., Index No. 651910/2023, resulted from motions made after the debtor’s counsel, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, refused to answer certain questions at a deposition based on an assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The Court explained: Read More

On December 4, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted in part a motion to compel the production of documents in a defendant’s possession regardless of whether the defendant possessed them in a “personal” capacity or from acting as a trustee. In Conca Tekiner Chelsea, et al., v. Yasemin Tekiner, et al., Index No. 154224/2023, Defendant Yasemin Tekiner withheld certain documents and communications on the basis that she sent, received, drafted or executed the documents in a personal capacity rather than while acting as a trustee. The Court ordered production of the documents. It explained: Read More

On December 21, 2024, Justice Andrea Masley granted a motion to compel a Filipino bank to collect and search documents from one of its in-house counsel despite the bank’s claim that the information possessed by its lawyer would be privileged. In Bangladesh Bank v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, et al., Index No. 652051/2024, the plaintiff sought to compel RCBC, which is based in the Philippines, to collect and search documents held by one of its in-house lawyers who was involved in factual investigation relevant to the case. The Court granted the motion. It explained: Read More

On December 4, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted in part plaintiff’s motion to vacate a Special Referee’s report. The case is Gowen v. Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc., Index No. 650646/2014. The case concerned a ten-year-old dispute in which the heirs to the owner of a painting by Amedeo Modigliani, which had been stolen by the Nazi regime, sought to recover it from an art dealer who had later acquired it at auction. Read More

On November 29, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen issued a Decision and Order in ARC NYWWPJV001, LLC v. WWP JV LLC, Index No. 654977/2024, granting a motion, in part, to compel production of purportedly privileged documents. Defendant had inadvertently produced two allegedly privileged documents and sought to claw them back. Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant moved to require Defendant to “‘produce’ (again)” these documents. The Court granted the motion as to one document and denied it as to the other. The Court explained: Read More

On November 29, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted in part the law firm Morrison Cohen LLP’s motion to withdraw as counsel but conditioned it on the turnover of an agreement reached between the firm’s client and the City of New York. In JTRE 23 WS (Del) LLC v. CS Wall Street LLC, Index No. 654992/2021, Morrison Cohen LLP moved by order to show cause to, among other things, withdraw due to unpaid legal fees. The defendant did not oppose the motion but requested that the Court condition the withdrawal on the production of an agreement in discovery. The Court granted the defendant’s request. It explained: Read More

On August 27, 2024, in Novum Energy Trading Inc. v. Transmontaigne Operating Co. L.P., Index No. 655283/2023, Justice Margaret A. Chan found all but one of a defendant’s eight Requests for Admission to be improper. Read More

On September 30, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen issued a Decision and Order in Five Star Electric Corp. v. The Trustees of Columbia University et al., Index No. 655947/2018, granting Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR § 3126. The action arose from a construction project involving a new building at Columbia University. Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss the case based on Plaintiff’s claimed willful failure to provide discovery as ordered by the Court. The Court agreed, explaining: Read More

On August 27, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok denied summary judgment to plaintiffs and granted it in part to one defendant in an action to collect on an alleged $9 million loan. The case is Elie Tahari v. Shelly Narkis, Index No. 650671/2021. Read More

On July 11 2024, Justice Andrea Masley resolved various motions concerning the sealing or redaction of documents alleged to contain confidential business information. The case is Jaffrey v. Scaminaci, Index No. 653352/2022. Read More

In an April 19, 2024 order, Justice Andrew Borrok addressed whether communications relating to a joint venture were protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection. Read More

On March 5, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok granted a motion to compel discovery and declassify certain information marked by the Defendants as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” The court in Richmond Global Compass Fund Management GP, LLC, et al. v. Decio Nascimento, et al., Index No. 654190/2021, concluded that Defendants could not limit the provision of certain information solely to the Plaintiff’s attorney even if Defendants feared that the Plaintiff would use that information to tortiously interfere with Defendants’ current and prospective business relations. The Court explained, in part: Read More