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

On May 7, 2026, in J&A Concrete Corp. v. Everest Reins. Co., Index No. 813988/25E, Justice Fidel E. Gomez granted defendants’ motion under CPLR 510 to change venue to Albany County. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the project’s payment bond required that suit be brought in Bronx County. The bond’s venue provision required that any suit be brought in the “State court [of] competent jurisdiction in and for the country or other political subdivision of the State in which the project, or any part thereof, is situated, or in the United States District Court for the district in which the project, or any part thereof, is situated, and not elsewhere.” (Emphasis added). Plaintiff argued that ‘country’ was a typographical error and should be read as ‘county.’ The Court declined to do so. The Court explained: Read More

On April 19, 2026, in AlphaSense, LLC v. Richards, Index No. 650202/2026, Justice Andrea Masley granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to seal two exhibits. Plaintiff sought to seal a report on defendant Daloopa, Inc.’s business performance that had been generated using plaintiff’s artificial-intelligence platform, as well as a “competitive intel” Slack channel post. Plaintiff argued that both documents contained proprietary, confidential, and commercially sensitive information. The Court denied sealing as to the AI-generated report, reasoning that the report concerned defendant Daloopa’s own business rather than plaintiff’s proprietary information; that the report carried a disclaimer acknowledging it was AI-generated, might contain inaccuracies, and instructing users to verify with original sources; and that plaintiff had routinely disseminated similar reports to prospective customers without any confidentiality designation. The Court granted sealing as to the Slack post, which referenced plaintiff’s large language model technology. In denying sealing of the AI-generated report, the Court explained: Read More

On April 20, 2026, in D & V Realty LLC v. Klyukin, Index No. 656782/2022, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted defendant Mikhail Klyukin’s motion to dismiss the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs—members of three Manhattan real-estate development LLCs—alleged that defendants effected an improper change in the management of those LLCs in February 2022, shortly before Klyukin was designated by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control as a Specially Designated National — a designation that, under OFAC’s 50%-ownership rule, also rendered the new management entities themselves blocked persons. Klyukin, a non-domiciliary, moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8). Plaintiffs invoked long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4) and submitted emails and WhatsApp messages from 2016 through 2019 showing that Klyukin had exercised veto authority over the development projects through co-defendants then operating in New York. The Court held that, although the record showed Klyukin had exercised control over alleged New York-based agents through 2019, plaintiffs had produced no evidence—despite nearly four years of discovery—that Klyukin caused or participated in the 2022 management changes underpinning their claims. The Court also held that Klyukin’s indirect interest in New York real estate, through corporate entities, did not satisfy CPLR 302(a)(4)’s requirement that the defendant personally own, use, or possess the property at issue. In dismissing the claims, the Court explained: Read More

On April 16, 2026, in Core 5th Ave. LLC v. 711 Fifth Ave. Principal Owner LLC, Index No. 654976/2025, Justice Andrea Masley granted the landlord’s motion for civil contempt against the tenant but rejected the landlord’s request for a per diem financial penalty. The landlord moved under Judiciary Law §§ 753(A) and 773 for civil contempt and sanctions of $250 per day after the tenant admittedly failed to check government IDs of its members and their guests, in violation of a prior court order, for a nine-week period from December 15, 2025 until February 5, 2026, when the tenant purged the contempt by initiating an ID-checking program. The Court held that civil contempt fines are compensatory, not punitive, and that the landlord had failed to establish any compensable injury from the nine-week delay. The Court emphasized that the landlord had monitored and videotaped the tenant’s lobby check-in process for the entire nine-week period without objection — conduct the Court found undermined the landlord’s contention that the breach posed a security risk causing damage. The Court limited the financial penalty to a one-time $250 award, plus reimbursement for the cost of making the contempt motion (including attorneys’ fees, but expressly excluding the cost of the surveillance video). In limiting the financial penalty, the Court explained: Read More

On November 18, 2025, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied both a plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and defendant’s cross-motion which sought to dismiss the complaint as abandoned or untimely. The case is B. Riley Retail Solutions, LLC v. CA Global Partners Ltd., Index No. 651626/2024. Read More

On August 21, 2024, Justice Nancy M. Bannon denied defendants’ motion to preclude the reports and trial testimony of plaintiff’s experts, while imposing certain limitations on the expert’s trial testimony, in a contractual dispute concerning environmental remediation. The case is 2497 Realty Corp. v. Fuertes, Index No. 151947/2014. 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

On February 13, 2024, Administrative Justice Adam Silvera denied a letter application, in Island Exterior Fabricators LLC v. Tishman Construction Corp. of New York, Index No. 654788/2023, to transfer a commercial construction dispute to the Commercial Division, holding that the case did not belong in the Commercial Division, explaining: Read More

On May 10, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Stanziale v. Perlson, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 31528(U), holding that an attorney affirmation was insufficient to support a motion for default judgment when many of the allegations in the affirmation were based on information and belief, explaining: Read More

On August 18, 2021, the Second Department issued a decision in Grocery Leasing Corp. v. P&C… Read More

On April 5, 2021, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in J.G.… Read More

On April 13, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Darabont v. AMC Network Entertainment L… Read More

On March 25, 2021, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Cort… Read More

On March 23, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Simon v. FrancInvest, S.A., 2021 NY Sli… Read More

On March 19, 2021, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in CF… Read More

On March 19, 2021, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Magic Circle Films Intl., LLC v. Breon… Read More

On March 4, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Great Ajax Operating Partnership L.P. v.… Read More

On February 10, 2021, Justice Knipel of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in 52… Read More

On February 5, 2021, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in O… Read More