On November 2, 2026, in Kaplan v. Circle Internet Group Inc., Index No. 650459/2026, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division granted the motion of Circle Internet Group, Inc. and Circle Internet Financial, LLC (together, “Circle”) to dismiss the amended complaint against them. Plaintiff alleged that an unidentified thief stole more than $13 million of USDC, a stablecoin that Circle issues and administers, from plaintiff’s cryptocurrency wallet. Plaintiff alleged that Circle had the ability to freeze the stolen USDC remaining in the thief’s wallet but declined his requests to do so because its then-applicable policy required a court order, and that, before the court issued a temporary restraining order, the thief had swapped all of the stolen USDC for other cryptocurrency. Plaintiff had no prior relationship with Circle. The court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence and aiding-and-abetting claims against Circle, holding that Circle owed plaintiff no duty to act. The Court explained: Read More

On October 1, 2026, in Abramov v. Capula Investment US LP, Index No. 651251/2026, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied defendants’ motion to dismiss a whistleblower retaliation claim under Labor Law § 740. Read More

On October 6, 2026, in Webb v. Infusion Capital Group LLC, Index No. 659826/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division denied defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended complaint brought by an individual appearing pro se, both on his own behalf and as assignee of a limited liability company’s claims. The action arises from an alleged agreement to purchase future receivables from RP Palm Beach LLC, which does business as Roxy’s Pub. Plaintiff John Webb sought declarations that defendants lacked authority to enforce the agreement or, alternatively, that the agreement was a criminally usurious loan. Defendants moved under C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(3) and 321(a), arguing that the LLC lacked capacity because it had not obtained a certificate of authority to do business in New York, and that a corporate entity may not appear without counsel. The Court found that defendants offered no evidence that the LLC was doing business in New York, and it also denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions. On the pro se issue, the Court explained: Read More

On September 24, 2026, in UBS Securities LLC v. Dondero, Index No. 650744/23, Case No. 2025-02596, the Appellate Division, First Department, largely affirmed an order of Justice Melissa A. Crane of the New York County Commercial Division denying motions to dismiss a turnover petition asserting a veil-piercing claim. UBS, a judgment creditor, alleged that James Dondero dominated the judgment debtors and used that domination to strip them of their assets and render them judgment proof. A veil-piercing plaintiff must show that the owner dominated the entity “in respect to the transaction attacked.” Dondero argued that the transaction attacked was the underlying transaction that gave rise to UBS’s judgments (the Knox Transaction), and that UBS had not alleged that he dominated the judgment debtors with respect to that transaction. The Court disagreed, explaining: Read More

On August 27, 2026, in Matter of HBK Master Fund L.P. v. NewRez LLC, 252 AD3d 438, Index No. 656286/23, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed an order of Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division dismissing a certificate holder’s claims against the servicer of a residential mortgage-backed securities trust. Read More

On March 17, 2026, in CPPIB Credit Invs. II Inc. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., Index No. 654398/2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss claims arising out of an “up-tiering” transaction. CPPIB and plaintiff-intervenor Thebes held notes issued by Lions Gate under a $1 billion indenture. They allege that Legacy Lions Gate obtained the consent of a majority of noteholders to a supplemental indenture that, among other things, released guarantors associated with one part of the company’s business—a successful “Studio Business”—but left the non-consenting minority with notes backed only by another struggling part of the company’s business. Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs had not complied with the indenture’s no-action clause, which bars a holder from pursuing any remedy unless holders of at least 25 percent in principal amount have first directed the trustee to sue. Plaintiffs conceded that they had not satisfied that condition. Surveying several cases, and acknowledging that key language from one case was arguably dicta, the Court explained: Read More

On September 10, 2026, in Gamma USA, Inc. v. Pavarini McGovern, LLC, Index No. 655472/23, Case No. 2025-01311, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously modified an order of Justice Melissa A. Crane of the New York County Commercial Division that had limited a counterclaim to a $3.6 million liquidated damages cap. Read More

On March 10, 2026, in Gans v. Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC, 247 AD3d 456, Index No. 152695/24, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order of Justice Anar Rathod Patel, which dismissed a legal malpractice complaint and denied leave to amend. Read More

On July 27, 2026, in Bourbiaux v. Probst, Index No. 651161/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division granted in part and denied in part the managing members’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Read More

On July 27, 2026, in Bourbiaux v. Probst, Index No. 651161/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Read More

On April 22, 2026, Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division identified various pleading deficiencies in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss a complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief for misconduct alleged to have led to the bankruptcy of a non-party. The case is Mayer v. Goldner, Index No. 659341/2025. Read More

On July 10, 2026, in O’Connor v. Blue Diamond Growers, Index No. 160511/2025, Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Read More

On July 10, 2026, in Kim v. Radiology Associates of Main Street, P.C., Index No. 715347/2025, Justice Marguerite A. Grays of the Queens County Commercial Division denied defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss. Read More

On May 11, 2026, in Jennie Enterprise, et al., v. Michael Shvo, et al., Index No. 653221/2024, Justice Andrea Masley denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding causes of action for civil RICO violations, RICO conspiracy, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. Read More

On May 21, 2026, in New Tent, LLC, et al, v. Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd., et al., Index No. 659251/2024, Justice Andrea Masley granted banks’ motions to dismiss claims that their threats to withhold funding and commence foreclosure created economic duress that should invalidate a forbearance agreement. 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 February 24, 2026, in A Participations Ltd. v. Velissaris, Index No. 652720/2023, Justice Melissa A. Crane found plaintiffs’ fraud/fraudulent inducement claim lacking in several respects and dismissed it. With respect to impermissible group pleading, the Court explained: Read More

On January 5, 2026, in Bank of India, N.Y. Branch v. Anaya Gems, Inc., Index No. 655240/2018, Justice Andrea Masley dismissed plaintiffs’ RICO claims. The Court explained: Read More

On November 24, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok sustained plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, while dismissing its claim for quantum meruit as duplicative. The case is Torreya Partners LLC v. Sandoz Inc., Index No. 653040/2025. Read More

On October 4, 2025, Justice Andrea Masley denied a motion to dismiss and granted a stay in deference to two previously-filed federal actions. The case is Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLC, Index No. 655738/2023. Read More