- Posted: May 1, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog
Commercial Division Rules Updated to Add Technology Cases to List of Cases Eligible for Commercial Division and to Remind Counsel About Use of Referees
On February 14, 2024, the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts signed an administrative order (i) adding technology transactions and commercial disputes involving or arising out of technology to the list of cases that can be brought in the Commercial Division, and (ii) adding a new Rule 9-b reminding counsel of the ability to consent to the use of referees. Read More
- Posted: April 26, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Denies Motion To Strike Jury Demand
On April 9, 2024, Justice Andrea Masley denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s jury demand. In Khan v. Garg, 652334/2013, the Court explained: Read More
- Posted: April 24, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Grants Mandatory Injunction Requiring Purchaser To Close On Transaction
On April 6, 2024, Justice Andrea Masley granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and required the defendant purchaser to close on the sale of a business within 10 days of the order. In James River Group Holdings, Ltd. v. Fleming Intermediate Holdings, LLC, Index No. 651281/2024, the parties were to close on March 1, 2024 on the sale of plaintiff’s reinsurance subsidiary to defendant. However, defendant refused to do so absent significant concessions. Plaintiff brought suit and sought a preliminary injunction requiring the specific performance of the parties’ Stock Purchase Agreement. In granting the motion, the Court explained: Read More
- Posted: April 22, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Denies Motion For Summary Judgment In Lieu Of Complaint
On April 5, 2024, Justice Margaret A. Chan denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint based on certain promissory notes. The decision in Elisa Wietschner, as trustee of the WFIG Trust v. 9 Vandam JV LLC, Index No. 655573/2023, explained: Read More
- Posted: April 19, 2024 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Finds Action For Indemnification Premature Where Agreement Lacked An Advancement Clause And No Covered Payment Had Yet Been Made
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
Load More