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

On October 3, 2025, Justice Melissa A. Crane granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment after concluding that, because plaintiffs had not registered as real estate brokers, they could not seek certain fees or commissions for their work on a real estate portfolio. In CSG Re Partners, LLC, et al., v. Ian Behar, et al., Index No. 653469/2025, a written memorandum of understanding (MOA) between several “investors” governed the management and financing of a complicated portfolio of real property. The agreement provided for various incentive, financing, and transaction fees to the investor/brokers. The Court ruled that at least some of these fees violated New York Real Property Law (RLP) § 442-d by giving fees to unlicensed brokers, explaining: Read More

On March 11, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for breach of a contractual duty to indemnify litigation expenses the Plaintiff had paid in connection with ongoing litigation in Oklahoma and the bankruptcy of its subsidiary. In SBN FCCG, LLC v. Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc., Index No. 650197/2023, Plaintiff contended the Defendant was obligated to pay Plaintiff’s litigation expenses based on a contractual indemnification clause. The Court rejected the claim as premature, however, finding that the contract contained no advancement clause that might mandate coverage of ongoing litigation expenses before the ultimate resolution of the case. The Court also concluded that a settlement in the subsidiary’s bankruptcy had explicitly disclaimed existence of the criteria needed to trigger indemnification of litigation expenses. As to the ongoing Oklahoma litigation expenses, the Court explained: Read More

On November 27, 2023, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied a motion brought by a plaintiff seeking an award of costs expended in interpreter fees at the depositions of two defendants. The decision in Winnie Tsui, et al. v. Katherine Chou, et al., Index No. 652840/2013, rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they discovered during two depositions that the parties spoke English sufficiently to answer questions and, thus, no interpreters were necessary after having gone to the trouble and expense of arranging for interpreters. Plaintiffs argued that the defendants were able to answer questions in English and were therefore shown not to require an interpreter. The Court, however, relied on an affidavit from the defendants’ daughter attesting that both defendants were born in China and, although conversational in English, do not have a high level of fluency. The Court explained: Read More