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

On October 5, 2026, in Casita, L.P. v. Maplewood Equity Partners (Offshore) Ltd., Index No. 653122/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division directed defendants to respond to a plaintiff’s document demands and declined to limit or bifurcate discovery at an early stage of the case. Plaintiff, an equity fund investor, sued the fund’s managing members for breach of contract, seeking to enforce the accounting and fund distribution terms of a subscription agreement. Plaintiff sought documents concerning fund distributions, accounting and tax records, non-privileged fee and retainer documents, and account transfers. Defendants opposed production of certain documents on the ground that, at this early stage, discovery should be limited. The Court found that none of those categories fell within the CPLR’s protected categories. It explained: Read More

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

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

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

On August 3, 2026, in Python Financial Solutions, Inc. v. SDCK I LLC, Index No. 653659/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division ordered plaintiff to produce two documents it had withheld on privilege grounds due to insufficiently describing the privilege in written objections. Read More

On July 10, 2026, in Schaeffer v GSE Worldwide, Index No. 652676/2021, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division denied the defendants’ motion to quash fourteen nonparty subpoenas. Read More

On May 6, 2026, in Bourbiaux v. Probst, Index No. 651161/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed denied plaintiffs' motion to hold defendants and their attorneys in civil contempt. The action arises from a partnership dispute over alleged asset diversions and alleged violations of an LLC operating agreement. The parties had resolved plaintiffs' earlier motion for a TRO and injunctive relief by a so-ordered stipulation, in which defendants agreed to provide plaintiffs with various business and financial records within 90 days. Plaintiffs then moved to hold defendants and their attorneys in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law §§ 753(A)(3), 756, and 773, or alternatively for sanctions under CPLR 3126, asserting that defendants failed to complete production by the deadline and that the noncompliance impaired plaintiffs' ability to quantify damages and value their ownership interests. Defendants contended that they had produced all responsive documents in their possession and that plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith. The Court denied the motion, explaining: Read More

On April 28, 2026, in Sasson v. Bridger Consulting Group, Inc., Index No. 654872/2024, Justice Melissa A. Crane granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for a preclusion order and an adverse inference. Read More

On May 11, 2026, in Morgan v. St Mark's World Acquisition LLC, Index No. 651186/2021, Justice Andrea Masley denied plaintiff's motion to reject a Judicial Hearing Officer's report and recommendation and confirmed the report in its entirety. Read More

On April 22, 2026, in Slice Wireless Services, LLC v. Yakubov, Index No. 656506/2017, Justice Robert R. Reed declined to require defendants to supplement their discovery responses and denied plaintiff’s requests for production of defendants’ client list and corporate tax records. Read More

On April 2, 2026, Justice Joel M. Cohen issued a Decision and Order in Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. v. SKOUT Monitoring, LLC, Index No. 650539/2022, granting plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions. GNY sued its security operations center provider, SKOUT, alleging SKOUT failed to detect and escalate suspicious activity preceding a ransomware attack on GNY’s systems. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found SKOUT’s failure to preserve Slack communications, Zendesk ticket data, and historical alarm data constituted gross negligence, and imposed an adverse inference and an award of attorneys’ fees. The court declined to strike SKOUT’s answer. A central issue was when SKOUT’s duty to preserve arose. SKOUT argued it was when GNY sent a formal preservation demand, but the court found the duty arose six months earlier, explaining: Read More

On March 5, 2026, Justice Andrew Borrok granted a defendant’s motion for an order compelling the plaintiff to return a hard drive that contained a forensic image of a laptop with confidential information that was inadvertently produced during discovery. In Jesus Nunez-Unda v. Thibault Adrien, et al., Index No. 650971/2022, the defendant had turned over a forensic image of a laptop reflecting data at the time the plaintiff had ended his employment. However, this image also included confidential information that should have been withheld. The defendant moved for relief, which the Court granted. It explained: Read More

On March 2, 2026, in Haruvi v. Hungerford, Index. No. 651033/2022, Justice Andrew Borrok granted plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents based on defendant’s improper withholding of documents as privileged without basis to do so. The Court explained: Read More

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