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

On January 27, 2026, Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in WWP Mezz, LLC v. WWP Mezz Investment Co. LLC, Index No, 650135/2026, denying a mezz borrower's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining a U.C.C. foreclosure sale of the mezz borrower's ownership interest in the fee owner of Worldwide Plaza. One of the arguments the borrower made was that the requirements to be a "Qualified Bidder" were too onerous, since those requirements--which came from the definition of "Qualified Transferee" in the intercreditor agreement entered into between the mortgage and mezz lenders--were agreed upon when the underlying property was worth much more than it was at the time of the foreclosure. But Justice Masley rejected this argument, explaining: Read More

On July 10, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen dismissed a lawsuit that two borrowers had filed in New York in an attempt to restrain a UCC sale of collateral located in the state, writing that only the secured party could avail itself of the relevant venue provision. In Zoey Paint Corp., et al. v. Commercial Credit Group, Inc., et al., Index No. 651989/2024, the loan and security agreements executed by the parties contained a provision designating North Carolina as the exclusive venue for any actions relating to the agreements. However, the venue provision contained an exception clause allowing “an action to recover possession of all or part of the collateral” in the state having jurisdiction over such collateral “in the sole discretion of the holder/secured party.” The Court interpreted this language to mean that only the secured party could bring a lawsuit outside North Carolina. It explained: Read More