commercial division assignment

• (800) 767-8040

Free Consultations Nationwide

MDF Law Blog

Jurisdiction of the new york state supreme court commercial division.

The New York Commercial Division is part of the New York State Supreme Court and was created to handle complicated commercial cases in their respective jurisdictions. There are specific rules that apply for a case to be handled by the Commercial Division. These rules are as follows.

Monetary Thresholds

Each of the ten jurisdictions of the Commercial Division has its requirements on the amount of monetary claim that must be sought for them to handle the case. These amounts are exclusive of punitive damages, interests, costs, disbursements, and counsel fees. 

The jurisdictional thresholds to qualify for the Commercial Division vary by county.  Here are the limits as of 2021 within the following counties.  These limits may change frequently depending on caseload. 

• Nassau $200,000
• Suffolk $100,000
• Westchester $100,000
• Onondaga $50,000
• Queens $100,000
• Kings (Brooklyn) $150,000 
• New York (Manhattan) $500,000 

Commercial Cases

The Commercial Division will hear cases that involve the following causes of action, provided that the monetary threshold listed above is met or if equitable or declaratory relief is sought: 

• Breach of contract or fiduciary duty fraud, misrepresentation, business tort, statutory or common law actions where the breach alleged arises out of business dealings 
• Transactions included in the Uniform Commercial Code, except those involving cooperatives or condominium units 
• Transactions involving commercial real property, such as Yellowstone injunctions, but excluding actions that only involve rent payments 
• Business transactions involving or arising out of dealings with financial institutions, including commercial banks 
• Internal affairs of business organizations
• Malpractice complaints against accountants, actuaries, and legal malpractice arising out of representation in commercial matters 
• Environmental insurance coverage 
• Commercial insurance coverage

Under the rules of the commercial division, the following causes of action do not have to meet the monetary threshold listed above: 

• Shareholder derivatives action 
• Commercial class actions 
• Dissolution of corporations, partnerships, LLCs, LLPs, and joint ventures 

Non-Commercial Cases

Generally, the Commercial Division would not handle non-commercial causes of actions even if they meet the monetary threshold. These non-commercial causes of action may include: 

• Lawsuits to collect professional fees
• Cases seeking a declaratory judgment as to insurance coverage for personal injury or property damage 
• Residential real estate disputes, including landlord-tenant, commercial real estate disputes on rent payment only 
• Home improvement contracts for residential property for up to four residential units or individual units in a residential building, including cooperatives and condominiums
• Proceedings to enforce a judgment regardless of the nature of the underlying case
• First-party insurance claims and actions by insurance to collect premiums or rescind non-commercial policies
• An attorney malpractice action unless they arose out of representation in a commercial matter 

Assignment to the Commercial Division

Suppose a party wishes to get the case assigned to the Commercial Division . In that case, that party must do so by filing a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) and a completed Commercial Division RJI Addendum that certifies that the case meets the monetary threshold and one of the causes of action set by the jurisdiction. Failure to file an RJI precludes a party from seeking assignment of the case to the Commercial Division. 

The parties to the complaint may also consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court. Parties can do this by stating so in their choice of law or provision sections of the contract. As noted above, this is only permissible if the case has met both the monetary threshold and cause of action requirements. 

The request for assignment to the Commercial Division must be made within 90 days of the services of the complaint. 

Transfer into the Commercial Division

If an RJI was filed within the 90-day window, but the filing party did not designate the case as “commercial,” then any other party may then request to transfer the case into the commercial division by filing a letter application to the Administrative Judge within ten days after the receipt of a copy of the RJI. 

Moreover, the non-commercial division justice handling the case may request the Administrative judge to transfer the case to the commercial division, provided that it meets the money threshold and cause of action requirement. 

Note that the Administrative Judge’s decision regarding this transfer is considered final and not subject to further administrative appeal. 

Transfer From the Commercial Division

As noted above, the Commercial Division justice handling the case may transfer a case to a non-commercial part of the court if they deem it not to meet the monetary threshold and cause of action requirement. 

Moreover, a party that is aggrieved by a transfer of a case to a non-commercial part of  the court may ask the Administrative judge to review the transfer by filing a letter application within ten days of the receipt of the case’s designation to a non-commercial part. 

Similar to the situation listed above, the ruling of the Administrative judge regarding the transfer of the case is final and not subject to further administrative appeal.

Do You Have A Matter You Want to Discuss With an Attorney?

Print this Article

Need to speak to someone? Give us a call.

Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.

By using our website, you agree to the terms of our Privacy Policy

Publications

Kevin schlosser authors, "new statewide uniform rules for commercial division" for nylj, publication source: nassau lawyer.

In May 2003, a panel of the justices assigned to the New York State Supreme Court Commercial Division met and compared all of the different individual rules of eligibility and practice in each of the Commercial Parts throughout the state. A consensus quickly developed that practicing in the Commercial Parts should be more uniform and consistent. Justice Leonard B. Austin of Nassau County’s Commercial Division was enlisted to spearhead the effort to draft a set of rules and guidelines that would apply to the Commercial Parts for all of the Counties of the State.

In formulating a draft of the uniform rules, Justice Austin used three guiding principles: (1) tapping his own experience as a practicing lawyer, he borrowed the best rules of the judges before whom he appeared; (2) he avoided judicial rules that appeared to be unfair when he was faced with them in private practice; and (3) he identified the rules that would make life easier as a judge having to preside over a complex and voluminous case load. 1 After input and commentary from other justices of the Commercial Parts and the Commercial Bar, more than fifteen drafts, and two and half years in the making, the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of New York implemented the new rules that now govern all of the Commercial Parts throughout the entire state as of January 17, 2006. The rules are promulgated under a new section of Part 202 of the Uniform Civil Rules of the Supreme and County Courts, published in 22 NYCRR Section 202.70. Certain of these new rules actually supersede provisions that apply to non-Commercial Division cases concerning preliminary conferences and motion procedures. 2

Although the rules are intended to apply to each of the justices of the Commercial Divisions throughout the state, certain provisions of the rules are discretionary and, of course, individual judges may apply the rules in practice in varying manners.

Eligibility and Assignment

While under the previous rules each County had slightly different variations for the type of cases eligible for Commercial Division assignment, the only variation now is the monetary threshold necessary to qualify for the Commercial Courts. The monetary thresholds range from a low of $25,000 in Counties such as Suffolk, Albany and Erie, to a high of $100,000 in New York and Westchester Counties. 3 Nassau County’s monetary threshold remains at $75,000. 4

Under the old practice, it was difficult and unclear how to address situations where a case was eligible for Commercial Division assignment but, for one reason or another, was assigned to a non-Commercial Part. The new rules specifically address assignments and re-assignments. 5 A party seeking to assign a case to a Commercial Division must indicate on the Request for Judicial Intervention that the case is “commercial.” 6 Such party must also submit with the RJI “a brief signed statement justifying the Commercial Division designation, together with a copy of the proceedings.” 7 If a case has not been assigned to a Commercial Part where it is otherwise eligible, any other party may apply by letter application to the Administrative Judge to request that the case be transferred into the Commercial Division, but, significantly, this must be done within ten days after receiving a copy of the RJI. 8 Although the rules state that a request for reassignment may be made only if the party filing the RJI did not designate the case as “commercial,” one would hope that the Administrative Judge would also properly reassign a case if there were an omission or error in designating a case where the RJI actually did identify it as a commercial case.

The rules also provide a procedure for a Commercial Part justice’s rejecting a case if he or she believes it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division. 9 Any designations or re-designations under these provisions also may be brought to the Administrative Judge within ten days of receipt of the designation. (Counsel should consider the wisdom, however, of challenging a Commercial Division judge’s decision to reject a given case as not qualifying for such assignment, which would require the Administrative Judge to impose that assignment on that judge.) All determinations of the Administrative Judge are final and subject to no further review or appeal. 10

Preliminary Conference Preparation

Commercial Division practitioners should be particularly mindful of the new rule on preliminary conferences, which closely tracks well-established federal practice. 11 Rule 7 now requires a preliminary conference to be held within 45 days of assignment of the case to a Commercial Division Justice “or as soon thereafter as is practicable.” Rule 8 further requires counsel for all the parties to consult prior to a preliminary or compliance conference about several topics, including resolution of the case, in whole or in part, discovery, and alternate dispute resolution to resolve some or all of the issues. 12 Counsel are also required to make a “good faith effort to reach agreement on these matters in advance of the conference.” 13

Electronic Discovery

Significantly, the new rules require counsel to give detailed and careful consideration to electronic discovery issues before the preliminary conference and to confer with each other and address these issues at the conference. The electronic discovery issues that must be addressed include but are not limited to (i) implementation of a data preservation plan; (ii) identification of relevant data; (iii) the scope, extent and form of production; (iv) anticipated cost of data recovery and proposed initial allocation of such cost; (v) disclosure of the programs and manner in which the data is maintained; (vi) identification of computer system(s) utilized; (vii) identification of the individual(s) responsible for data preservation; (viii) confidentiality and privilege issues; and (ix) designation of experts. 14

Yet another rule requires counsel to be prepared to supply the court with certain materials at the preliminary conference, such as the caption of the case with the index number, the names, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses of all counsel, the dates when the case was instituted and issue joined, a description of any anticipated motions and a copy of any decisions rendered in the case. 15

Thus, counsel would be well advised to give their case careful consideration and attention and be prepared prior to as well as at the preliminary conference.

The rules allow counsel to agree among themselves without court permission to reschedule the dates and deadlines set in a PC order for particular items of discovery, so long as all discovery is completed by the cutoff date of the PC order. 16 In addressing discovery disputes, the rules continue the practice applicable to all other cases requiring counsel to consult with each other in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. 17 While the rules require counsel for the aggrieved party to contact the court to arrange a conference to resolve the discovery dispute and, in fact, recommend that counsel request a conference by telephone “if that would be more convenient and efficient than an appearance in court,” how individual justices apply this rule in practice remains to be seen.

Orders to Show Cause and TROs

The rules also continue the general Commercial Division practice of prohibiting motions to be brought by order to show cause unless there is a “genuine urgency,” a stay is required or a statute mandates otherwise. 18 Further, the rules warn that “a temporary restraining order will not be issued” unless the moving party “can demonstrate that there will be significant prejudice by reason of giving notice” to the opposing side. 19 Thus, a party moving for a temporary restraining order “must give notice to the opposing parties sufficient to permit them an opportunity to appear and contest the application.” 20 Significantly, reply papers are prohibited when a party is moving by order to show cause unless the court gives advance permission. 21

Another rule which has applied in federal court for quite some time has been left up to the discretion of the individual Commercial Division Justices. This rule would require a party moving for summary judgment to submit a statement of material facts that are not in dispute. If the opposing party does not submit a counterstatement or otherwise contest those facts, they are deemed admitted. 22 Insofar as Justices in New York County and Nassau County had previously adopted such a rule, it is expected that this requirement will continue there.

The rules continue to require counsel to notify the court in advance of making certain motions. 23 A list of the motions to which this rule does not apply are set forth in Rule 24. In commenting upon the requirement that counsel must give the court advance notice before making a motion for summary judgment when discovery is not yet complete, Justice Austin noted that he hoped to avoid the disruption of discovery by premature dispositive motions and the corresponding routine request for further discovery pursuant to CPLR 3212(f).

Finally, the rules continue the general practice in the Commercial Parts of requiring counsel to prepare, serve and submit detailed pre-trial papers in advance of trial. 24 The rules warn that failure to follow these pre-trial requirements could result in an order of preclusion. 25

In all, the rules are a welcome addition to the sophisticated Commercial Parts that are now fully integrated into state court practice in New York. As Justice Austin has commented, the rules should now provide Commercial practitioners with uniformity and consistency throughout the state.

990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 300, Garden City, NY 11530

1350 Broadway, Suite 1420, New York, NY 10018

750 Ninth Street, Suite 501

Washington, D.C. 20001

• Join Our Mailing Lists
• Business Reorganization, Debt Restructuring and Creditors’ Rights
• Cybersecurity and Data Privacy
• Employment Law
• Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
• Franchise Law, Distribution and E-Commerce
• Investment Management
• Sustainability
• Criminal Defense
• Government & Regulatory Investigations
• Real Estate Law
• Securities Enforcement and Litigation
• Sustainability | Local Law 97 Resource Center
• Trusts and Estates
• Family Offices
• Food & Beverage
• Health and Life Sciences
• Hospitality
• Non-Profit Organizations
• Private Investment Funds
• Professional Service Firms
• Real Estate
• Wealth Management
• Case Studies
• Publications
• CannaBizDisputes™
• Construction Law Insider
• Criminal Justice Insider
• Trusts & Estates Insider
• Practice Areas
• CannaBizDisputes™ Blog
• Criminal Justice Insider Blog

Commercial Division Practice Guide

New York’s most complex business litigation actions are assigned to the Commercial Division within New York State’s Supreme Court. Tannenbaum Helpern’s litigators regularly appear in Commercial Division matters in New York, Westchester, Nassau, Kings and Queens Counties. This website provides updates, news, and resources to assist in navigating New York’s Commercial Division.

• Commercial Division Justices Webinar: Litigating in the Commercial Division During COVID-19 Commercial Division Justices Saliann Scarpulla (New York County), Timothy Driscoll (Nassau County), and Deborah Karalunas (Onondaga County) will discuss the operations and methods that the Commercial Division is using to move cases forward during the pandemic.
• E-filing of Motion Papers and Notices of Appeal Resume 5/4/20 Starting May 4, 2020, parties may file new motions, responsive papers to previously filed motions, notices of appeal, and other applications through the New York State Court’s e-filing system. This expansion does not, however, include the filing of new non-essential cases.
• Commercial Division Justice Remote Contact Information The contact information for the chambers of the Commercial Division Justices throughout New York and information regarding special procedures and virtual conferences during the coronavirus pandemic.
• New York’s Virtual Courts Open for Business The Commercial Division embraces technology as the coronavirus pandemic continues in New York. Commercial Division Justices begin conducting virtual conferences in pending cases.
• Cardozo Law Review Article: Reducing the Cost and Increasing the Efficiency of Resolving Commercial Disputes (10/18) The article addresses major impediments to resolving commercial disputes efficiently and methods for reducing litigation costs and improving efficiencies.
• New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect October 1, 2018: Encouraged Use of Technology-Assisted Review in Discovery The new rule encourages parties to use the most efficient means to review electronically stored information including technology-assisted review, such as predictive coding, in appropriate cases
• Request for Public Comment on Amendment to Commercial Division Mediator Selection Rule The proposed amendment will encourage counsel to work together to select a mediator because statistics show that parties are more likely to settle matters before a jointly approved mediator than before a mediator appointed by another method. Public comment on the proposed amendment must be received no later than August 20, 2018.
• Request for Public Comment on Amendment to Commercial Division Page Limit Rule The proposed amendment will substitute word limits in place of the current page limits. Briefs, memoranda of law, affidavits and affirmations would be limited to 7000 words (instead of 25 pages) and reply memoranda would be limited to 4200 words (instead of 15 pages). Public comment on the proposed amendment must be received no later than May 15, 2018.
• Request for Public Comment on Amendment to Commercial Division Rule on Technology-Assisted Review in Discovery The proposed amendment will encourage parties to use the most efficient means to review electronically stored information including technology-assisted review, such as predictive coding, in appropriate cases. Public comment on the proposed amendment must be received no later than May 15, 2018.
• Request for Public Comment on New Rule to Encourage Use of CPLR Provisions Permitting Immediate Trial or Pretrial Evidentiary Hearing on a Material Issue of Fact The proposed rule will encourage parties within the Commercial Division to take advantage of certain CPLR provisions (2218, 3211(c), 3212(c)) that permit an immediate trial or pretrial evidentiary hearing on a material issue of fact. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than May 15, 2018.
• Commercial Division Justice Alan D. Scheinkman Appointed As Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division Second Department On January 1, 2018, Governor Cuomo appointed Westchester County’s Commercial Division Justice Alan D. Scheinkman as Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division Second Department. Justice Scheinkman was assigned to the Commercial Division in 2006 and has been serving as the Administrative Judge in Westchester County Supreme Court since 2009.
• Request for Public Comment on New Proposed Sample Claw-Back Language In Standard Commercial Division Confidentiality Stipulation and Order Parties implementing the proposed claw-back language would agree to take reasonable steps to correct errors when protected information is inadvertently produced, return or destroy copies of inadvertently produced protected information upon request of the producing party, and waive challenges to the producing party’s review procedure or efforts to address the inadvertent disclosure. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than January 16, 2018.
• New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect January 1, 2018: Required Submission of ADR Statement At Every Court Conference The new rule requires counsel to discuss alternative dispute resolution with their clients. Attorneys must submit a statement certifying the discussion and whether the party “is presently willing to pursue mediation at some point during the litigation” at the preliminary conference and at each subsequent Court conference.
• Commercial Division Justice Timothy Driscoll Discusses New Trial Affidavit and Time Limit Rules Nassau County Commercial Division Justice Timothy Driscoll discusses the impact of two new Commercial Division rules that permit judges to require direct testimony by affidavit and limit the total number of trial hours. In addition to discussing the new rules and the reasons for their implementation, Justice Driscoll provides insight as to his application of the rules.
• Queens County Commercial Division Modifies Its Rules As of April 3, 2017, all Queens County Commercial Division motions and proposed Orders to Show Cause must delineate “COMMERCIAL DIVISION” in boldfaced type on the front page of the notice of motion. Motions are also to be made returnable before the assigned Commercial Division Judge on their respective motion days. Failure to do so may result in the motion being marked off or administratively adjourned.
• Request for Public Comment on New Proposed Model Status Conference Stipulation and Order Form for Use in the Commercial Division The proposed revised Commercial Division model status conference stipulation and order form modifies the previously issued forms and reflects rule changes over the last two years. It is a model and would not be mandatory. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than August 25, 2017.
• Request for Public Comment on Amendment to Commercial Division Rules to Include a Sample Choice of Law Clause The amended rule would include a sample choice of law provision in the appendix which may be used by parties in a pre-dispute context to select New York law to govern their disputes. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than August 25, 2017.
• Request for Public Comment on Proposed Establishment of a Large Complex Case List in the Commercial Division The Administrative Board of the Courts is seeking public comment on a proposal to establish a “Large Complex Case List” for the management of cases with a minimum of $50 million in alleged damages. Certain procedures would apply to cases on this list including employment of special referees and special mediators. The list would be piloted in New York County and expanded as appropriate. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than July 25, 2017.
• Commercial Division Justices Oing and Singh Appointed to the Appellate Division First Department On May 22, 2017, Governor Cuomo appointed New York County Commercial Division Justices Jeffrey K. Oing and Anil C. Singh to the Appellate Division First Department. Justice Oing was assigned to the Commercial Division in 2011 and Justice Singh was assigned to the Commercial Division in 2015.
• Request for Public Comment on New Proposed Rule to Address Alternative Dispute Resolution The proposed Commercial Division rule will require counsel to submit a statement at the preliminary conference and each compliance or status conference certifying that counsel has discussed the availability of ADR with the client and stating whether the client “is presently willing to pursue mediation at some point in the litigation.” Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than June 5, 2017.
• Request for Public Comment on New Proposed Model Compliance Conference Stipulation and Order Form The proposed revised Commercial Division model compliance conference stipulation and order form modifies the form issued in April 2015 and reflects rule changes over the last two years. It is a model and would not be mandatory. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than May 30, 2017.
• New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect July 1, 2017: Limiting Total Number of Trial Hours The amended rule articulates the Commercial Division justices’ power to require estimates of, and to limit, the total number of hours of trial of Commercial Division matters.
• New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect July 1, 2017: Requiring Supporting Papers With Notice of TRO Application The amended rule requires a TRO applicant to provide their adversaries with advance copies of papers supporting the application for a TRO when they give notice of the application.
• New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect May 1, 2017: Consultation on Expert Testimony in Advance of Trial The new rule permits the Court to direct that prior to a pre-trial conference, counsel must consult in good faith to identify areas of expert testimony that are not in dispute and reduce any agreements to a written stipulation.
• New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect April 1, 2017: Consent to Jurisdiction of the Commercial Dvision The new section 202.70(d)(2) and Appendix C of the Commercial Division Rules allows parties to a contract to consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Division. A sample choice of forum provision is included in Appendix C.
• Commercial Litigator Rowan D. Wilson Nominated to the Court of Appeals by Governor Cuomo Wilson’s career has focused on complex litigation including antitrust and competition, contracts, securities fraud, entertainment and media, and employment matters. If confirmed by the senate, Wilson will be the only Court of Appeals Justice with significant private commercial experience.
• Video - A Forum for Business Disputes: The Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York The Commercial Division Advisory Council released a new video on the evolution and benefits of the Commercial Division. The video includes commentary from Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, former Chief Judges Jonathan Lippman and Judith Kaye, attorneys that practice in the Commercial Division, and Commercial Division Judges.
• New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect October 17, 2016: Direct Testimony by Affidavit The new Rule 32-a of the Commercial Division Rules permits a Commercial Division judge to require that direct testimony of a party’s own witness in a non-jury trial or evidentiary hearing be submitted in affidavit form. The court, however, may not require the submission of a direct testimony affidavit from a witness who is not under the control of the party offering testimony.
• Proposed Commercial Division Rule: Request for Public Comment on New Rule Addressing Consultation on Expert Testimony in Advance of Trial The amended rule would permit the Court to direct that prior to a pre-trial conference, counsel must consult in good faith to identify areas of expert testimony that are not in dispute and reduce any agreements to a written stipulation. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than December 20, 2016.
• Proposed Commercial Division Rule: Request for Public Comment on New Rule Requiring Supporting Papers With Notice of TRO Application The amended rule would require a TRO applicant to provide their adversaries with advance copies of papers supporting the application for a TRO when they give notice of the application.Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than January 10, 2017.
• Proposed Commercial Division Rule: Request for Public Comment on New Rule to Include Sample Forum Selection Clause The amended rule would include a sample choice of forum provision in the appendix which may be used by parties in a pre-dispute context to select the Commercial Division as their choice of forum. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than December 20, 2016.
• Proposed Commercial Division Rule: Request for Public Comment on New Rule Limiting Total Number of Trial Hours The amended rule would articulate the Commercial Division justices’ power to require estimates of, and to limit, the total number of hours of trial of Commercial Division matters. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than December 20, 2016.
• Proposed Commercial Division Rule: Request for Public Comment on New Rule on Sealing of Sensitive Business Documents The new rule would permit Commercial Division justices to seal documents for “good cause” to protect sensitive business information. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than December 15, 2016.
• Proposed Commercial Division Rule: Request for Public Comment on New Rule on Hyperlinking Requirement of E-Filed Documents The new rule would permit Commercial Division justices the discretion to require hyperlinking in e-filed documents. The hyperlinked documents would also have to be e-filed separately. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than December 5, 2016.

New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect July 1, 2016: Settlement Conference With Different Judge

• The new Rule 3(b) of the Commercial Division Rules allows counsel to jointly request that the assigned Judge assign a different “settlement judge” to hold a settlement conference. The request will be granted at the discretion of the assigned Judge.
• New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect July 1, 2016: Model Confidentiality Order The new Rule 11-g of the Commercial Division Rules requires parties seeking a confidentiality order to use a model order included in the appendix to the rules. In the event that the attorneys choose to deviate from the model order, they are required to submit a red-lined copy of the order along with an explanation for the deviation.
• New Commercial Division Rule Takes Effect July 1, 2016: Rulings at Disclosure Conferences The new Rule 14-a of the Commercial Division Rules allows the parties to prepare a proposed written order, with any resolutions reached at the conference, for the Justice’s signature or dictate any resolutions reached into the record. The new rule also includes a proposed stipulated order provision for telephone conference calls with the court whereby the parties submit a proposed order to the court within one business day of the call. The telephone conference section of the rule was not recommended by the Commercial Division Advisory Counsel and was added after the comments period concluded.
• THSH Article in the NYSBA Journal: Commercial Division Attorney Professionalism and Practice (June 2016) How do you appropriately deal with an attorney that delays litigation at every turn? The Attorney Professionalism Forum addresses the topic including the application of new Commercial Division Rules.
• Proposed Commercial Division Rule: Request for Public Comment on New Rule Permitting the Court to Require Direct Testimony In Affidavit Form The new rule would permit a Commercial Division judge to require that direct testimony of a party’s own witness in a non-jury trial or evidentiary hearing be submitted in affidavit form. This procedure is currently employed in federal and state courts and some judges find that it streamlines trials and facilitates crisper cross-examinations. Public comment on the proposed rule must be received no later than July 25, 2016.
• Event: What Happens Next? The New York County Commercial Division Judges Discuss the Application of the New Commercial Division Rules A “Meet and Greet” with New York County Commercial Division Judges followed by a panel discussion concerning lessons to be drawn from the implementation of recent rule changes and prospects for further innovation. Tuesday, June 21, 2016 – Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP NYC Office - 2 CLE Credits
• Event: An Evening With the Commercial Division Justices of Nassau and Suffolk Counties A “Meet and Greet” with the Commercial Division Judges followed by a lively panel discussion: A Year in Retrospect. The New Commercial Division Rules and other current commercial litigation topics from the Judges' Perspective. Tuesday, June 21, 2016 – Melville Marriott - 2 CLE Credits
• Article from The New York Law Journal: Fraud Claims Arising From Contract Negotiations (4/15/16) In the Commercial Division Update, the NYLJ looks at how the courts determine whether a viable fraud claim exists where a party alleges that it was defrauded during the negotiation of a commercial contract.
• Article from The Real Deal: The Judges Who Rule Over Real Estate (4/1/16) The Real Deal profiles 6 New York County Commercial Division Justices that have overseen some of Manhattan’s biggest real estate cases over the past few years.
• Video: The Origins and Evolution of the Commercial Division The Historical Society of New York Courts and the Commercial Division Advisory Council produced a brief documentary describing the origins and evolution of the Commercial Division with testimonials from the general counsel of major corporations.
• Article from The New York Law Journal: Deposition of Corporate Witnesses in Commercial Division Cases (3/16/16) The NYLJ looks at the recent addition of Rule 11-f of the Commercial Division which permits a party to list topics on which it seeks to conduct deposition discovery which is consistent with FRCP 30(b)(6).
• News: Acting Justice Barry Ostrager is Designated to Sit in New York County’s Commercial Division (3/14/16) It was announced that Justice Ostrager, a former partner and chair of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett’s litigation department, will be taking over most of the caseload of former Commercial Division Justice, and now Chief Administrative Judge, Lawrence Marks.

Gibbs v Holland & Knight, LLP, 2023 NY Slip Op 30506[U] (New York County, J. Borrok - 2/17/23) Arbitrator Does Not Exceed Power or Violate Public Policy in Attorney’s Fee Award Where Partnership Agreement Authorizes Arbitrator to Assess Costs and Attorneys’ Fees to the Non-Prevailing Party – Even Where That Party Prevailed on One of the Issues.

Plaintiff, a former partner of Defendant, alleged that Defendant unfairly refused to compensate him in accordance with the Partnership Agreement. The arbitrator granted one of Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid compensation, but otherwise denied Plaintiff’s claims for breach of the Partnership Agreement, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit. Noting that the Defendant had prevailed on the central issue of the arbitration, the arbitrator granted Defendant’s claim for attorneys’ fees and disbursements paid by counsel and denied Plaintiff’s claims for fees. Plaintiff moved to vacate the portion of the Final Award granting attorney’s fees and costs to the Defendant, arguing that the award of attorneys’ fees was irrational, exceeded the arbitrator’s power and violated public policy. The Court noted that the Partnership Agreement authorized the arbitrator to assess to the non-prevailing party the costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees of the prevailing party. The Court then found that because Defendant was deemed the prevailing party on a majority of the issues before the Arbitrator, the final award granting Defendant its attorney’s fees and costs was not irrational and supported by more than a colorable justification, and thus the Court was obligated to give deference to the arbitrator’s decision. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to vacate.

• Key terms: Attorneys’ Fees, Prevailing Party, Arbitration

SPG Capital Partners, LLC v Cascade 553 LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 50016 (New York County, J. Reed – 1/6/23) Term Sheet, Conditioned on Lender’s Completion of Due Diligence and Expressly Identified As Not An Offer or Agreement, Held To Be An Unenforceable Agreement To Agree And Exclusivity Provision Is Not Independently Enforceable Despite Provision Stating That It Will Survive Termination of Term Sheet

Plaintiff, SPG Capital Partners, LLC (“SPG”), a real estate investment and finance corporation, and defendant, Cascade 553 LLC (“Cascade”), a real estate development company, signed a term sheet pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to provide a first mortgage loan of $110,000,000 for the development of property in Brooklyn. Upon execution of the term sheet, Cascade paid SPG a $200,000 good faith deposit. The term sheet provided that Cascade was prohibited from obtaining a first mortgage from another source, and provided that, if Cascade did so, it would forfeit the good faith deposit and pay a 2 percent break-up fee as liquidated damages for the time and effort expended. Notwithstanding this provision, Cascade obtained first mortgage financing from another source and SPG brought this action for breach of contract, seeking, inter alia, the breakup fee. Cascade moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the term sheet was a nonbinding agreement to agree. Cascade argued that the term sheet made clear that the parties did not intend it to be a final contract, and that its terms were too indefinite to be enforceable. In particular, Cascade argued that the term sheet stated it was “for discussion purposes only,” subject to Lender’s satisfactory completion of its due diligence “as determined by Lender in its sole discretion,” and was not “an offer, agreement, or commitment to lend or borrow”. Finally, the term sheet agreement stated that “[t]he actual terms and conditions upon which the Lender might extend credit to the Borrower may change and [also] will be subject to … such other terms and conditions as determined by Lender in its sole discretion.” In response, SPG argued that the term sheet set forth an agreement on all material terms – the amount of the loan, an explanation as to the use of the funds, the interest rate, the loan's term, the origination fee, and the exclusivity provision – such that there was no ambiguity. The Court granted Cascade’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the term sheet did not bind the parties. The Court relied upon the language in the term sheet that underscored its preliminary nonbinding nature, that vested exclusive discretion in SPG as to whether to proceed with the funding and that provided that essential lending terms could be modified. Although the term sheet provided that the exclusivity provision “shall survive the termination of this Term Sheet” and that SPG was entitled to the breakup fee should the deal not go forward, the Court found that there was no statement that rendered this provision enforceable notwithstanding the general nonbinding nature of the term sheet. Moreover, the Court found that this survival provision lacked mutuality of consideration necessary to make it independently actionable; SPG had not assumed any meaningfully commensurate obligation.

• Key Terms: Agreement to Agree, Term Sheet, Survival, Real Estate

Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc. v 683 Capital Partners LP, 2023 Slip Op 50002(U) (New York County, J. Reed – 1/3/23) Court Grants Additional Time to Serve Complaint in the Interests of Justice Despite Jurisdictional Defect of Failure to File Affidavit of Compliance

Plaintiff moved for a 45-day extension of time to allow its process server to properly serve Defendant, a public limited company based in Ireland, with process under Business Corporation Law Section 307. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for failing to provide an affidavit of compliance and failing to establish good cause for the delay. Plaintiff then moved for leave to renew its motion for an extension of time because the process server had not received the return receipt for mailing by the required deadline. Although the Court found that Plaintiff failed to provide reasonable justification for failing to present the affidavit of compliance within the statutory deadline, the Court determined that it was in the interest of justice to grant Plaintiff additional time to serve Defendant. The Court found that Plaintiff demonstrated reasonable efforts to effectuate service within the 120-day period after it commenced the action, and that Defendant was not prejudiced by the length in delay given that its counsel was consistently apprised of Plaintiff’s service efforts and provided with all relevant documents.

• Key Terms: Service of Process, Good Cause, Motion to Renew, Affidavit of Compliance, Jurisdictional Defect, Interests of Justice

Chernomordik v Ocean Sand Dev., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 33846(U) (Kings County, J. Ruchelsman – 11/2/22) Motion to Dismiss LLC Dissolution Cause of Action Denied

In April 2007, Ocean Sand Development LLC was formed to develop oceanfront property in the Dominican Republic. The government of the Dominican Republic rejected plans to develop the property three times, and thus the property has remained undeveloped for fifteen years. Plaintiff, a 5% member of the LLC, sued for judicial dissolution pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law 702. The operating agreement of the LLC states that its purpose is to “own, lease, develop, manage, and operate the premises…” The LLC moved to dismiss, arguing that the best option going forward was to “continue to hold the Property with the reasonable expectation that its value will skyrocket if and when the regulatory environment changes, as it tends to do from time to time in the Dominican Republic.” The Court concluded that this was “so speculative, so abstract and so theoretical” and that “there can be no question the goal of the entity was not to hold the undeveloped property for such a long period of time.” Justice Ruchelsman denied the motion, holding that “the plaintiff may be able to establish the stated goal of the entity will never be achieved.” • Chernomordik v Ocean Sand Dev., LLC , 2022 NY Slip Op 33846(U) (Sup. Ct., Kings County, November 2, 2022) • Key Terms: Business Divorce, Judicial Dissolution, LLC, Limited Liability Company Law 702 Singer v De Blasio, 2022 NY Slip Op 50318(U) (New York County, J. Borrok - 04/20/22) Over two-decade-long saga on vacant old P.S. 64 building in East Village endures: Commercial Division permits owner to proceed on tortious interference with prospective business relations.

Plaintiff Gregg Singer bought former P.S. 64, located at 605 East Ninth Street (“Property”), in 1998 from the City of New York. Since that time, Mr. Singer has orchestrated many attempts to redevelop the Property into a student dormitory facility. Mr. Singer has faced contentious opposition to his plans. To date, none of his plans has succeeded and many lawsuits have been filed. In the latest chapter in this saga, Mr. Singer sued, inter alia, former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, the New York City Department of Buildings (“DOB”), and an alleged competing developer of the property, Aaron Sosnick, alleging that Mr. Sosnick employed certain lobbying groups to unlawfully influence former Mayor de Blasio and the DOB to thwart Singer’s ability to develop the Property and to snatch control of it from him so that he could buy it for himself and develop it. Mr. Singer, seeking $330 million in damages, asserted three causes of action against the defendants: (1) tortious interference with existing business relations; (2) tortious interference with prospective business relations; and (3) prima facie tort. The defendants moved to dismiss. Judge Borrok partially granted the defendants’ motion, dismissing Mr. Singer’s claim for tortious interference with existing business relations (with prejudice) and the prima facie tort claim (without prejudice). The Court, however, denied the defendants’ motion as to Mr. Singer’s claim of tortious interference with prospective business relations. The defendants tried to argue that Mr. Singer failed to sufficiently allege the third element of this claim – that the defendants acted with the sole purpose of harming Mr. Singer or using wrongful means. The Court, however, disagreed, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged political pressure had improperly been used to interfere not only with the building permit and a lease that Mr. Singer entered into with a university (to use two floors of the Property as a dormitory for students), but also with prospective leases with other tenants.

• Singer v. De Blasio, 2022 NY Slip Op 50318(U) (Sup. Ct., New York, April 20, 2022)
• Key terms: Real Estate, Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations, Motion to Dismiss, NY CPLR 3211

Quattro Parent LLC v Rakib, 2022 NY Slip Op 30190(U) (New York County, J. Masley – 1/14/22) Business Valuation Determined on Paper Submissions Without a Trial Based on Defendant’s Testimonial Admission Despite Defendant’s Expert Testimony Refuting Damages

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on damages in a breach of contract case in which defendant’s liability had already been decided. The Court stated the “sole issue is the value of plaintiff’s shares, if any, on November 15, 2015, when defendant Zaki Rakib refused to proceed to close the deal to purchase shares of Quattro for $7.5 million.” The Court was prepared to try this case virtually in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, but defendant demanded an in-person bench trial and insisted he had a right to cross examine plaintiff's witness at trial. Plaintiff countered that damages could be established on papers as there were no issues of fact necessitating trial. The Court granted plaintiff's request to file the dispositive motion. The Court held the measure of damages was the difference between the price defendant promised to pay for 100 million shares, $7.5 million, and the value of those shares at the time of breach, as measured by the amount that a knowledgeable investor would pay for the shares. Plaintiff presented an affidavit by one of its former board members, Joshua Ho-Walker, to support plaintiff’s position that the shares had no value at the time of the breach. Ho-Walker noted that despite investment banker outreach to nearly 150 potential investors, there was no interest in purchasing plaintiff’s shares; the company continued to operate at a deficit; the company owed $40 million to creditors, and subsequently three minority shareholders sold their collective 1.1 million shares for a total of one cent. Defendant objected to Ho-Walker as an interested witness and offered as its damages witness CPA Michael Garibaldi, who is accredited in business valuation and certified in business forensics. Garabaldi relied on book value on Quattro’s tax returns and audited financial statements to argue that the Quattro was worth more than $7.5 million, such that no damages had been suffered. While the Court considered the competing views of Ho-Walker and Garibaldi, in the end the Court predominantly relied upon the defendant’s repeated testimony – constituting admissions – that the shares were worthless at the time of the breach. The Court wrote, “[d]efendant has repeatedly stated under oath to this court that plaintiff’s shares were ‘worthless’ unless the company obtained an additional $75 million in financing, which he conceded would never happen.” The Court found that defendant’s affidavit which in opposition to the motion that contradicted its prior testimony that plaintiff’s shares were worthless created only a “feigned issue of fact,” which was “insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Moreover, the Court rejected Garibaldi’s reliance on book value or tax value as a substitute or approximation for market value, which it held to be the proper value for damages analysis. In that regard, “The court finds that the best indication of market price is the price that was paid to the shareholders who sold 1.1 million shares in December 2016 for $0.01, not per share, but per 1.1 million shares.”

• Key Terms: Business Valuation, Breach of Contract, Summary Judgment, Damages

Levy v Zimmerman, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op 50738(U) (New York County, J. Ostrager - 7/30/21) Parties’ Unambiguous Agreement Did Not Entitle Co-Writer Plaintiff to Proceeds from Sale of Musician’s Catalog Plaintiffs commenced this action contending that under a 1975 agreement reflecting the collaboration between defendant Bob Dylan and plaintiff Jacques Levy, they are entitled to proceeds from the sale of Bob Dylan’s music catalog which included copyrights and royalty rights. Defendants Bob Dylan and Universal Music Group moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that the 1975 agreement did not entitle plaintiff to proceeds of the catalog sale, inter alia. After reviewing the 1975 agreement, the Court held that the terms of the agreement were unambiguous and that it did not entitle plaintiff to any proceeds other than the royalties plaintiff was already receiving. As such, the Court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the action. The Appellate Division First Department affirmed the decision on appeal.

• Levy v Zimmerman , 2021 N.Y. Slip Op 50738(U) (Sup. Ct. New York County, July 30, 2021) • Levy v Zimmerman , 204 AD3d 409 (1st Dept 2022) • Key Terms: Breach of Contract, Breach of Contract as third party beneficiaries, tortious interference.

Orentreich v John B. Murray Architect, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 32944(U) (New York County, J. Borrok - 9/8/20) Demand for a Bill of Particulars Vacated Because it was Being Used as a Discovery Device: A bill of particulars is intended to amplify the allegations of a pleading, not as a substitute for discovery devices, such as interrogatories.

Plaintiff brought action alleging, inter alia, civil RICO violations, fraud and breach of contract arising from a purported overbilling scheme pursuant to which defendants purportedly charged plaintiff applicable architect rates for work performed by individuals who were not architects. Defendant served a Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars that contained 75 paragraphs, excluding subparts. Noting that the purpose of a bill of particulars is “to amplify the pleading, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial,” the Court found that Defendant’s bill of particulars sought “details more appropriately developed at a deposition” or in interrogatories -- such as identification of witnesses, computation of damages and the basis for particular allegations. Moreover, the court noted that the number of items Defendants sought exceeded the limited number of interrogatories permitted by the Commercial Division Rules. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Defendants' Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars.

• Key Terms: Discovery, Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars, interrogatories, Rule 11-a of the Commercial Division Rules.

Beard v. Chase, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 50824(U) (New York County, J. Ramos – 6/19/17) Acclaimed Photographer Declared Sole Owner of Works Allegedly Taken From His Apartment Pursuant to the Statute of Frauds

Plaintiffs alleged that three pieces of artwork were taken from acclaimed photographer Peter Beard’s apartment without his knowledge or consent. Justice Ramos granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and held that the photographer was the sole owner of the works. The Court held that the receipts presented by defendants in support of their assertion of a contract did not clearly identify the parties, the specific artwork to be sold, or the time frame necessary to create an enforceable contract. In addition, Justice Ramos found that the facts did not fall within the specially manufactured goods exception to the statue of frauds because, among other reasons, the payments were not “unequivocally referable” to the sale of the works.

• Beard v. Chase , 2017 NY Slip Op. 50824(U) (Sup. Ct., New York, June 19, 2017)
• Key Terms: Art, Statute of Frauds, Summary Judgment, UCC 2-201

Picard v. Bigsbee Enters., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 50698(U) (Albany County, J. Platkin - 5/23/17) Class Action Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment on Liability Where Restaurant Added Service Charge Without Distributing Funds to Servers

Plaintiffs in this class action alleged that they were servers at defendants’ restaurants which charged banquet customers an 18% or 20% “service charge” or “service personnel charge” but did not distribute these funds to the servers in violation of Labor Law 196-d. Pursuant to New York State Department of Labor regulation 12 NYCRR 146-2.18 [b], there is a rebuttable presumption, “that any charge in addition to charges for food, beverage, lodging, and other specified materials or services . . . is a charge purported to be a gratuity.” Justice Platkin held that defendants did not submit any proof showing that they complied with the regulation, the defendants’ sales personnel referred to the service charge as a gratuity, and granted partial summary judgment for the post 2011 subclass plaintiffs on the issue of liability finding the “service” and “service personnel” charges to be gratuities.

• Picard v. Bigsbee Enters., Inc. , 2017 NY Slip Op 50698(U) (Sup. Ct., Albany County, May 23, 2017)
• Key Terms: Employment, Gratuities, Class Action, Labor Law

Americore Drilling & Cutting, Inc. v EMB Contr. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 50441(U) (Queens County, J. Dufficy - 4/3/17) Corporate Veil Pierced in Bench Trial Decision on Oral Contract

Following a bench trial, Justice Timothy J. Dufficy awarded plaintiff Americore Drilling & Cutting, Inc. $118,000 for extra work it rendered pursuant to an oral contract with defendant EMB Contracting Corp. Pursuant to the parties’ oral contract, which the Court found to be enforceable because it could be performed within one year, plaintiff agreed to cut concrete balconies for a hotel being constructed in Long Island City. The Court held that plaintiff could pierce the corporate veil to sustain breach of contract claims against both defendant EMB, which was in privity with plaintiff, and Chilled Properties which the court ruled was created as part of a scheme to prevent the plaintiff from collecting payments due by EMB.

• Americore Drilling & Cutting, Inc. v EMB Contr. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 50441(U) (Sup. Ct., Queens, April 3, 2017)
• Key Terms: Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Oral Agreement, Fiduciary Duty, Piercing the Corporate Veil

Kaloyeros v. Fort Schuyler Mgt. Corp., 49 N.Y.S.3d 867 (Albany County, J. Platkin – 3/24/17) Director of Not-For-Profit’s Bid for Legal Fees and Expenses Denied

Justice Richard Platkin denied a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking declaratory judgment that two not-for-profit corporations were required to indemnify a former director for legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with pending federal and state criminal prosecutions. The Court held that plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of success for statutory indemnification or his claim for promissory estoppel with the proof presented (an unverified Complaint and an affirmation by his counsel). Moreover, plaintiff presented no sworn representation that the failure to obtain advanced legal fees would prejudice his defense in any manner much less constitute irreparable harm.

- Kaloyeros v. Fort Schuyler Mgt. Corp. , 49 N.Y.S.3d 867 (Sup. Ct. Albany, March 24, 2017)

- Key Words: Preliminary Injunction, Attorneys’ Fees, Not-For-Profit

Gordon v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00742 (1st Dept reversing New York County, J. Schweitzer - 2/2/17) First Department Adds Two Factors in Review of Nonmonetary Class Action Settlements

Verizon Communications, Inc. entered into a stock purchase agreement with Vodafone Group PLLC to acquire Vodafone subsidiaries. Following the commencement of a class action suit against Verizon’s board of directors, the parties negotiated a settlement. Justice Schweitzer held a fairness hearing and denied approval of the settlement and plaintiff’s attorney’s fees award holding that the disclosures that were part of the settlement did not benefit the shareholder class. The First Department reversed Justice Schweitzer’s decision and refined the 5 factor Colt standard of review by adding two new factors: “Whether the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the putative settlement class as a whole, and whether the settlement is in the best interest of the corporation.” Justice Moskowitz concurred with the majority’s decision to approve the settlement, but stated that the addition of the two new factors was unnecessary.

- Gordon v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00742 (1st Dept 2017) - Key Terms: Class Action, Nonmonetary Settlement, Colt Factors

DeCristofaro v Nest Seekers E. End, L.L.C. (Suffolk County, J. Emerson – 1/11/17) Directed Verdict Denying Plaintiff's Claim of De Facto Partnership in Real-Estate Brokerage

Plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendent giving him a marketing title of "EVP, Managing Partner" and requiring the parties to make best efforts to convert the agreement into an operating partnership agreement. Although proposed agreements were circulated, the parties did not enter into a partnership agreement. Although proposed agreements were circulated, the parties did not enter into a partnership agreement and the relationship between the LLC and the plaintiff deteriorated. Plaintiff commenced this action claiming the existence of a partnership. Justice Emmerson analyzed a number of factors to determine whether a de facto partnership. Justice including the sharing of losses, the lack of K-1 form, ownership of assets, capital contributions, and management and control. The court found that Plaintiff failed to establish a de facto partnership. Further, plaintiff's lack of a real-estate brokerage LLC under Real Property Law § 441-b.

- DeCristofaro v Nest Seekers E. End, L.L.C. , 2017 NY Slip Op 50074(U) (Sup. Ct., Suffolk County January 11, 2017) - Key Terms: Real-Estate Brokerage; De Facto Partnership

Benzies v. Take-Two (New York County, J. Ostrager - 12/19/16) Multi-Faceted Complaint Filed by Creator of Grand Theft Auto Video Game Reduced to Breach of Contract Action

Leslie Benzies, the creator of the "Grand Theft Auto" video game franchise, brought suit against Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and its more widely-known affiliate Rockstar Games Inc. alleging that he was improperly ousted as a shareholder of the company and deprived of royalties. In his 71-page complaint originally filed in federal court, and later removed to the Commercial Division, Benzies alleged that he was constructively discharged, fraudulently induced to enter into unfair agreements, and that the defendants defamed him, were unjustly enriched at his expense, and breached fiduciary duties owed to him. Relying primarily on the plain text of the various agreements between the parties, Justice Barry R. Ostrager ruled that, with the exception of Benzies' defamation claim (which was improperly pleaded), all of Benzies' claims derived from his breach of contract claims and were dismissed.

- Benzies v. Take-Two , Sup Ct, New York County, December 19, 2016, Ostrager, J., index No. 651920/16 - Key Terms: Breach of Contract, Defamation, Unjust Enrichment, Agreement, Fiduciary Duty, Derivative

Justinian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG (Court of Appeals, affirming 1st Dept, affirming New York County J. Kornreich – 10/27/16) Doctrine of Champerty’s Safe-Harbor Exception Only Applies When There is a Bona Fide Obligation to Pay

The Court of Appeals discussed the seldom-referenced doctrine of champerty, which prohibits an individual or entity from buying or taking an assignment of notes or other security instruments “with the intent and for the purpose of brining an action or proceeding thereon.” See New York Judiciary Law 489. In recognition of New York’s status as a leading commercial center, the statute provides a safe-harbor under which transactions with an aggregate purchase price of at least $500,000 are exempt from the statute’s prohibition. With this background, the Court dismissed the action finding that although the purchase price was over $500,000, the arrangements in this case did not create a bona fide obligation to pay because payment of the purchase price was contingent on a successful litigation outcome.

- Justianian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG , 28 N.Y.3d 160 (2016) - Key Terms: Champerty, Motion to Dismiss

Tai Huang v Northern Star Management L.L.C. (New York County, J. Ramos – 10/24/16) Minority Members Denied TRO Seeking to Prevent LLC Freeze-Out Merger

Justice Ramos denied a TRO brought by minority members of an LLC holding a collective interest of 27.50% in one of the defendants that was merging with the other defendant. The majority members of the LLC approved the merger and cashing out of the remaining minority members including the plaintiffs. Justice Ramos ruled that the clear language of the LLC’s operating agreement only required the consent of the majority members and not the majority of the disinterested members. Accordingly, the plaintiffs, as minority members, could not prevent the merger.

- Tai Huang v Northern Star Mgt. L.L.C. , 2016 NY Slip Op 32194(U) (Sup. Ct., New York County October 24, 2016) - Key Terms: Temporary Restraining Order; LLC; Freeze-Out Merger

MP Cool Investments Ltd. v. Forkosh (1st Dept affirming New York County, J. Kornreich - 9/1/16) Sophisticated Investor Did Not "Justifiably Rely" on Company's Representations to Support Fraud Allegations

The First Department affirmed the opinion of New York County Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich that experienced investors are held to a higher standard when it comes to pleading fraud. In MP Cool Investments, the plaintiff, a majority shareholder of HVAC company DuCool, Ltd., filed suit against the former-majority shareholders of the company alleging that they intentionally provided the plaintiff with false investment information. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that it had been induced to repeatedly invest in the company based on the defendants' representations that DuCool's products were more technologically advanced than others on the market. Affirming the Commercial Division opinion dismissing the complaint, the First Department held that plaintiff's fraud claims were deficient because not only did they lack the particularity required by the CPLR, they did not establish "justifiable reliance" to prove fraud because the plaintiff was a "sophisticated investor that had the means available to learn the true nature and real quality of [its] investment." - MP Cool Investments Ltd. v. Forkosh, 142 A.D.3d 286 (1st Dept 2016) - Key Terms: Fraud, Pleadings, Investor, Investment, Shareholder, Reliance

Michael R. Gianatasio, PE, P.C. v City of New York (New York County, J. Kornreich – 8/26/16) ​ Contractor's Claim For Unpaid Work by NYC Dismissed Where ACS Entered Into Illegal Contract

Plaintiff construction company was not fully paid for its work on the construction of ACS facilities. Justice Kornreich stated, “[t]here is no doubt that the City acted unlawfully and treated [Plaintiff] unfairly.” The Court, however, was precluded from enforcing the contracts against the NYC defendants because the subject contract did not comply with procurement requirements. “It does not matter that the municipality or its agents violated the law. The very purpose of prohibiting the enforcement of illegal contracts with municipalities is 'to protect the public from corrupt or ill-considered actions of municipal officials.'”​

- Michael R. Gianatasio, PE, P.C. v City of New York, 53 Misc 3d 757 (Sup. Ct., New York County August 26, 2016) - Key Terms: Illegal Contract; Motion to Dismiss

Integra Optics, Inc. v. Messina (Albany County, J. Platkin – 7/15/16) Unclean Hands Prevents Employer from Receiving a Preliminary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

The Commercial Division in Albany County denied an employer’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce the terms of a non-competition agreement after finding sufficient evidence demonstrating that the former-employee signed the agreement under duress, thereby seriously questioning the employer’s ultimate likelihood of success on the merits. Despite first finding that the employer achieved its initial burden demonstrating entitlement to a preliminary injunction, the court ultimately found the former-employee’s credible and substantial evidence of duress tipped the balance of equities away from an award of preliminary injunctive relief under the doctrine of unclean hands.

- Integra Optics, Inc. v. Messina , 52 Misc. 3d 1210(A) (Sup. Ct., Albany County July 15, 2016) - Key Words: Preliminary Injunction, Duress, Unclean Hands

Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 616 (Court of Appeals, reversing 1st Dept, reinstating New York County J. Bransten - 6/9/2016) Court of Appeals Restricts the Common Interest Privilege

In one of the most significant decisions of 2016, the Court of Appeals held that the common interest privilege – the doctrine that historically allowed attorneys and clients to share privileged information with third-parties with a common legal interest – now only applies when litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated. Rejecting the more expansive application of the common interest privilege practiced by federal courts and the First Department, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the doctrine should be limited to “situations where the benefit and the necessity of shared communications are at their highest, and the potential for misuse is minimal.”

- Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 616 (2016) - Key Terms: Common Interest Priviledge, Attorney-Client Priviledge, Commercial Transaction(s), Third Parties

GE Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Turbine Generation Services, L.L.C. (New York County, J. Kornreich – 5/27/16) Anti-Suit Injunction Warranted Where Party Seeks to Collaterally Challenge Court’s Judgment in a Foreign Action

Justice Kornreich granted an anti-suit injunction against a defendant after plaintiff obtained a summary judgment ruling in New York and the defendant sought to collaterally challenge that ruling in a Louisiana State court action. The court also found the defendant in contempt of court due to its violation of the court’s order by seeking to enjoin the New York action in the Louisiana State Court action. The defendant, however, can purge the contempt by discontinuing the Louisiana State Court action within 14 days.

- GE Oil & Gas, Inc. v Turbine Generation Services, L.L.C. , 51 Misc 3d 1226(A) (Sup. Ct., New York County May 27, 2016) - Key Terms: Anti-Suit Injunction, Contempt, Parallel Action, Foreign Litigation

Romanoff v. Center for Rheumatology, LLP (Albany County, J. Platkin - 5/24/16) “Distributable Goodwill” Possibly Available to Departing Partners in the Absence of Implied or Express Agreement to the Contrary

Justice Platkin determined that there is a question of fact as to whether the goodwill of the medical professional partnership is a distributable asset in Romanoff . The partners taking over the practice failed to affirmatively demonstrate that the medical center lacked the ability to attract patients as a result of its name, location and reputation. The Court also ruled that, at the summary judgment stage of the litigation, there was no evidence of an express agreement between the plaintiff doctor and his former partners that excluded goodwill from the practice’s distributable assets. Reciting the Court of Appeals’ decision in Matter of Brown , 242 N.Y. 1 (1926), the Court emphasized that “[g]ood will, when it exists as incidental to the business of a partnership, is presumptively an asset to be accounted for.”

- Romanoff v. Center for Rheumatology, LLP , 2016 NY Slip Op 50856(U) (Sup. Ct., Albany County May 24, 2016) - Key Terms: Distributable Goodwill, Partnership

In the Matter of Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., Shareholder Litigation (Court of Appeals, affirming 1 st Dept. & NY County J. Marks -5/15/16) NY Court of Appeals Adopts Delaware’s Standard of Review for “Going-Private” Mergers

The New York Court of Appeals endorsed the Delaware Supreme Court’s hybrid standard of review for going-private mergers. When faced with shareholder challenges to these types of mergers, the Court held that the business judgment rule is properly applied when six shareholder-conscious conditions are met: “(i) the controller conditions the procession of the transaction on the approval of both a Special Committee and a majority of the minority stockholders; (ii) the Special Committee is independent; (iii) the Special Committee is empowered to freely select its own advisors and to say no definitively; (iv) the Special Committee meets its duty of care in negotiating a fair price; (v) the vote of the minority is informed; and (vi) there is no coercion of the minority”. In the absence of these protections, however, the entire fairness standard should be applied.

- In re Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., Shareholder Litig., 2016 NY Slip Op 03545 (2016) - Key Terms: Merger, Business Judgement Rule, Entire Fairness Standard, Shareholder

Calltrol Corporation v. DialConnection, LLC (Westchester County, A. Scheinkman – 5/10/2016) Commercial Division Examines Tolling of Statute of Limitations and Whether Transaction is Governed by the UCC

Justice Alan D. Sheinkman denied a motion to dismiss due to questions of fact regarding a statute of limitations defense. The defendant was licensed by the plaintiff to resell software. The Court held that questions of fact existed as to whether partial payment was made by the defendant before or after the statute of limitations had expired and whether defendant issued written acknowledgment of the debt to the plaintiff with an intention to pay. The Court also ruled that further discovery was needed to determine whether the four-year (UCC) or six-year (CPLR) statute of limitation period applied to plaintiff’s breach to contract cause of action.

- Calltrol Corporation v. DialConnection, LLC , 2016 NY Slip Op 50765(U) (Sup. Ct., Westchester County May 10, 2016) - Key Terms: Breach of Contract, Statute of Limitations, Motion to Dismiss, UCC

Peter Hammond v. Bruce W. Smith (Monroe County, J. Rosenbaum – 4/22/2016) Commercial Division Rules Parties’ General Interest Does Not Create Partnership

On the eve of trial, Justice Matthew A. Rosenbaum granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant finding that a partnership agreement did not exist between the parties. The Court ruled the parties’ general interest in creating a partnership did not equate to the actual creation of a partnership. Where there was no agreement to share profits or losses, the parties did not verbally agree to form a partnership, and the defendant was solely liable to the creditors, there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the creation of a partnership.

- Peter Hammond v. Bruce Smith , 2016 NY Slip Op 50670(U) (Sup. Ct., Monroe County April 22, 2016) - Key Terms: Partnership, Summary Judgment

The Irish Dairy Bd. Cooperative Ltd. v Pryor Cashman LLP (NY County – J. Scarpulla - 4/19/16) Legal Malpractice Action Arising Out of Human Resources Audit Survives Motion to Dismiss

The defendant law firm, Pryor Cashman, was hired to provide plaintiffs with a labor and employment audit of its human resource practices and policies in the United States. After the audit, one of the plaintiffs was sued in a class action for violations of California wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs brought a legal malpractice action against defendant for failing to properly identify the issues for which it was sued. Justice Scarpulla granted Pryor Cashman’s motion to dismiss as to a number of plaintiffs due to the lack of an attorney-client relationship. However, Justice Scarpulla found that plaintiffs adequately alleged the existence of an attorney-client relationship between one of the plaintiffs and the defendant and plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the defendant’s failure to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession. The breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract causes of action were dismissed as duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action.

-The Irish Dairy Bd. Cooperative Ltd. v. Pryor Cashman LLP , 2016 WL 1597762 (Sup. Ct., NY County Apr. 19, 2016) - Key Terms: Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Labor and Employment Audit

Freidman v Yakov (1 st Department - 4/19/16) Appellate Division Upholds Attorney Sanctions For Conduct at Deposition in Commercial Division Case

The First Department upheld Justice Bransten’s decision awarding sanctions for attorney’s frivolous conduct at a deposition. The attorney’s conduct included speaking objections, profanity, multiple directions not to answer questions, and communication with a client without explanation. The sanction was the costs and legal fees for the sanction motion as well as the fees associated with the continued deposition.

- Freidman v Fayenson , 41 Misc 3d 1236(A) [Sup Ct 2013], affd sub nom Freidman v Yakov , 2016 NY Slip Op 02944 [1st Dept 2016] -Key Terms: Deposition, Attorney Sanctions, Speaking Objections, Profanity, Frivolous Conduct

Universal Investment Advisory, SA, et al. v Bakrie Telecom PTE, Ltd., et al. (NY County, J. Scarpulla – 4/18/16) Commercial Division Refuses to Bind Non-Signatories to a Forum Selection Clause

Justice Saliann Scarpulla held that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over a company’s commissioners, directors, and controlling shareholders in their individual capacities. Rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that these individual defendants were bound by the New York forum selection clause contained in notes, guarantees and an indenture, by virtue of the “closely-related” theory, the Court found no “objective evidence of their intent to be bound.”

-Universal Investment Advisory, SA, et al. v. Bakrie Telecom PTE, Ltd., et al. , 2016 NY Slip Op 50631(U) (Sup. Ct., NY County Apr. 18, 2016) -Key Terms: Forum Selection Clause, Personal Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss, Closely-Related Theory

Bonanni v Horizons Invs., Corp. (Suffolk County, J. Emerson - 3/9/16) Derivative Action Bench Trial Verdict

In a bench trial decision in a derivative action, the court awarded damages to plaintiff for the defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and conversion. The action involved a dispute between members of an LLC that provided MRI services to patients at hospitals.

-Bonanni v Horizons Invs., Corp., 50 Misc 3d 1227(A) [Sup Ct 2016] -Key Terms: Derivative Action, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unjust Enrichment, Conversion

The Statewide Rules of the Commercial Division, Legislative History, and Proposed Rules

Statewide Rules

• Statewide Commercial Division Rules
• Commercial Division Rule Changes and Their History: New York Statee Commercial Division Rule Changes Since September 2013 22 NYCRR 202.70

• Statewide Supreme Court Administrative Rules

The County Practices and Rules of the Commercial Division

New York County

Kings County

Bronx County

Queens County

Nassau County

Suffolk County

Westchester County

Albany County

7 th District - Rochester

8 th District - Buffalo

Onondoga County

• New York County ADR
• Queens County ADR
• ADR Resources
• NYS Commercial Division
• Official Reporter Commercial Division Decisions
• Social Media Ethics Guidelines

Site Search

User's Guide To Recent Revisions In The Commercial Division Rules

Contributor.

[A complete list of the Rules of the Commercial Division can be found here ]

I. introduction.

In 1995, the Commercial Division was formed in New York. Since its formation, the Commercial Division has seen an increase in the number and complexity of cases being filed. In response to this change, New York's Chief Judge created a Task Force on Commercial Litigation. In 2012, the Task Force issued a series of reform proposals aimed at better managing judicial resources, encouraging the use of non-judicial personnel and alternative dispute resolution, and increasing engagement with the corporate and academic communities and the Bar. Thereafter, the Chief Judge formed a Commercial Division Advisory Council which recommended various rules changes to implement the Task Force's report. From these recommendations, the following new rules and amendments have been enacted in 2014 or will be enacted in 2015.

This guide contains a summary of some important new rules and amendments to existing rules that have been enacted recently. For a complete list of the rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, please follow the link found here .

II. CASE INITIATION

Section 202.70 of the commercial division rules, (a) monetary thresholds. (amended).

Goal: To raise monetary thresholds in order to ease heavy dockets.

The new monetary thresholds for the Commercial Division, exclusive of punitive damages, interests, costs, disbursements and counsel fees claimed, are as follows:

Albany County $50,000

Eighth Judicial District $100,000

Kings County $150,000

Nassau County $200,000

New York County $500,000

Onondaga County $50,000

Queens County $100,000

Seventh Judicial District $50,000

Suffolk County $100,000

Westchester County $100,000

(d) Assignment to the Commercial Division. (AMENDED)

Goal: To (1) reduce the delay and (2) involve a judicial officer early on in the case.

Within 90 days after service of a complaint, any party may seek assignment of a case to the Commercial Division by filing a Request for Judicial Intervention ("RJI") that attaches a completed Commercial Division RJI Addendum certifying that the case meets the jurisdictional requirements for Commercial Division assignment. Failure to file an RJI pursuant to this time deadline precludes a party from seeking assignment of the case to the Commercial Division absent good cause for the delay pursuant to subdivision (e) below.

(e) Transfer into the Commercial Division. (AMENDED)

If an RJI is filed within the specified 90-day period and the case is assigned to a noncommercial part because the filing party did not designate the case as "commercial" on the RJI, any other party may apply to the Administrative Judge, within ten days after receipt of the RJI, to transfer the case into the Commercial Division. Notwithstanding these time deadlines, any party may apply to the Administrative Judge to transfer a case to the Commercial Division by showing good cause for the delay. In addition, a non-Commercial Division justice to whom a case is assigned may sua sponte request that the Administrative Judge transfer a case meeting the jurisdictional requirements into the Commercial Division.

III. SANCTIONS

(g) rules of practice for the commercial division. (amended, effective april 1, 2015).

Goal: To discourage dilatory conduct. Preamble. The judges in the Commercial Division will impose appropriate sanctions and other remedies and orders as is warranted by the circumstances. This includes sanctions for lawyers who engage in dilatory tactics, fail to appear for hearings or depositions, unduly delay in producing relevant documents, or otherwise cause the other parties in a case to incur unnecessary costs.

IV. COURT APPEARANCES

Rule 8. consultation prior to preliminary and compliance conferences. (amended).

Goal: To encourage parties to discuss settlement and identify early on any discovery that is useful in settlement discussions.

(a) Counsel shall consult prior to a preliminary or compliance conference about resolution of the case, in whole or in part; the use of alternate dispute resolution to resolve all or some issues in the litigation; and any voluntary and informal exchange of information that the parties agree would help aid early settlement of the case. (effective September 2, 2014)

(b) Counsel shall also confer regarding the need to vary the presumptive number (10) or duration (7 hours each) of depositions set forth in Rule 11-d. (effective April 1, 2015)

The Commercial Division has also prescribed a new optional Model Compliance Conference Order form. The new model form contains provisions addressing, inter alia , confidentiality agreements, disclosure agreements, causes of action and amounts in controversy, scheduling deadlines, and alternative dispute resolution. (effective April 1, 2015)

Rule 34. Staggered Court Appearances. (NEW RULE)

Goal: To eliminate the wasted time and expense involved in court appearances by waiting for a matter to be heard by the court. Each court appearance before a Commercial Division Justice for oral argument on a motion shall be assigned a specified time slot. Each attorney who receives notification of an appearance on a specific date and time is responsible for notifying all other parties by e-mail that the matter is scheduled to be heard on that assigned date and time. Requests for adjournments or to appear telephonically must be e-filed and received in writing by the court by no later than 48 hours before the scheduled court appearance.

V. DISCOVERY

Rule 11. discovery. (amended, effective april 1, 2015).

Goal: To give the court flexibility to tailor discovery to the individual case. The preliminary conference order may provide for limitations on interrogatories and other discovery. The Court should also consider the appropriateness of altering prospectively the presumptive limitations on depositions set forth in Rule 11-d.

Rule 11-a. Interrogatories. (NEW RULE)

Goal: To reduce unnecessary discovery and streamline case management.

Interrogatories are limited to 25 in number, including subparts, unless another limit is specified in the preliminary conference order. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, interrogatories are limited to the following topics: name of witnesses with knowledge of information material and necessary to the subject matter of the action, computation of each category of damage alleged, and the existence, custodian, location and general description of material and necessary documents, including pertinent insurance agreements, and other physical evidence.

At the conclusion of other discovery, and at least 30 days prior to the discovery cut-off date, interrogatories seeking the claims and contentions of the opposing party may be served unless the Court has ordered otherwise.

Rule 11-b. Privilege Logs. (NEW RULE)

Goal: To reduce the burden and expense of compiling privilege logs.

The official preference in the Commercial Division is for attorneys to use category level, rather than document level, designations in privilege logs. Parties may use "any reasoned method of organizing documents in the specified category" in their privilege logs. The following are important considerations:

Form of privilege log: Parties must provide a certification setting forth with specificity those facts supporting the privileged status of the information in each category, and the steps taken to identify the documents in the category. Privilege logs must be signed by a "Responsible Attorney."

Fee shifting: If the requesting party refuses to agree to a category-based privilege log, the document-by-document log requirement set forth in CPLR 3122 shall be followed. The producing party, however, may apply to the Court for allocation of costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred in completing a document by document log, and such costs will be awarded "upon good cause shown."

Email chains: Uninterrupted email chains constitute a single entry for purposes of document-by-document privileged logs.

Rule 11-c., Appendix A. Discovery of ESI from Nonparties.

Goal: To lower the burden on nonparties in complying with electronic discovery demands.

Note: These are only guidelines; they do not supersede any other rules or caselaw.

A party seeking ESI discovery from a nonparty should reasonably limit its discovery requests, taking into consideration the following proportionality factors:

A. The importance of the issues at stake in the litigation;

B. The amount in controversy;

C. The expected importance of the requested ESI;

D. The availability of the ESI from another source, including a party;

E. The "accessibility" of the ESI, as defined in applicable case law; and

F. The expected burden and cost to the nonparty. In the event that no agreement is reached through the meet and confer process, the requesting party and the nonparty are encouraged to seek resolution by availing themselves of the Court System's resources, such as by requesting a telephonic conference with a law clerk or special referee or the appointment of an unpaid mediator in accordance with Rule 3 of the Commercial Division Rules.

Pursuant to CPLR §§ 3111 and 3122(d), the requesting party shall defray the nonparty's reasonable production expenses.

Rule 11-d. Deposition Limits. (NEW RULE, effective April 1, 2015)

Goal: To lower litigation costs by limiting the number and duration of depositions.

Plaintiffs, defendants, and third-party defendants are presumptively limited to 10 depositions. Depositions are limited to 7 hours per deponent.

Parties may stipulate to additional or longer depositions. Commercial Division judges may grant exceptions to this time limit for "good cause shown."

The deposition of an entity pursuant to CPLR 3106(d) shall be treated as a single deposition even though more than one person may be designated to testify on the entity's behalf. However, each deposition of an officer, director, principal or employee of an entity who is also a fact witness, as opposed to an entity representative pursuant to CPLR 3106(d), shall constitute a separate deposition.

The Court should consider the appropriateness of altering the presumptive deposition limits in the preliminary conference order issued pursuant to Rule 11(c).

Rule 11-e. Responses and Objections to Document Requests. (NEW RULE, effective April 1, 2015)

Goal: To ensure timely and meaningful responses to document requests.

(a) In answering each document request, the responding party shall either: (i) state that production will be made as requested; or (ii) state with reasonable particularity the grounds for any objection.

(b) By a date agreed to by the parties or set by the Court, the responding party shall serve the Responses which shall set forth specifically: (i) whether the objection(s) pertains to all or part of the request being challenged; (ii) whether any documents or categories of documents are being withheld, and if so, which of the stated objections forms the basis for such withholding; and (iii) the manner in which the responding party intends to limit the scope of its production.

(c) A date certain shall be agreed by the parties or set by the Court for the completion of document production by the responding party.

(d) By an agreed date no later than one (1) month before to the close of fact discovery, or at a time set by the Court, the responding party shall state for each individual request: (i) whether the production of documents is complete; or (ii) that there are no documents in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to the particular request as propounded or modified.

Rule 14. Disclosure Disputes. (AMENDED, effective April 1, 2015)

Goal: To encourage resolution of discovery disputes by teleconference and to standardize discovery dispute letter writing practice.

The preferred method for resolving discovery disputes is through court conferences rather than through motion practice.

If a discovery dispute cannot be resolved through good faith consultation, counsel is to submit a letter to the court not exceeding three single-spaced pages outlining the nature of the dispute, representing that the party has conferred with opposing counsel in good faith, or explaining why no consultation occurred and requesting a telephone conference. Any affected opposing party or non-party shall submit a responsive letter not exceeding three singlespaced pages not later than four business days thereafter.

The Court will schedule a conference with counsel after receipt of the parties' letters, which shall be conducted by telephone when possible. If the parties desire to make a record, they will still have the opportunity to submit a formal motion.

This rule applies only when the Court's Part Rules are silent as to the procedure for handling a discovery dispute.

VI. PILOT PROJECTS

Automatic referral to mandatory mediation (effective july 28, 2014; remains in effect for 18 months)..

Goal: To aid parties in reaching early resolution of business disputes through mandatory mediation.

One out of every five cases newly assigned to the Commercial Division, except pro se cases, will be sent to mandatory mediation. The Clerk shall inform counsel of the referral to mediation by posting in the e-filing system. To be exempt from mediation, a party must petition the Court within 30 days and make a showing of good cause as to why mediation would be ineffective, unduly burdensome, or unjust.

Both parties have up to 120 days after the filing of a RJI to jointly notify the ADR Coordinator of an agreed upon mediator or to request that the Coordinator assign a mediator. Transmission of a notice confirming the name of the mediator shall constitute the Confirmation Date.

The first ADR session shall be conducted no later than 30 days after the Confirmation Date and shall conclude within 45 days, unless such time is extended by an additional 30 days. The mediation process shall be completed within 210 days.

Mediators will serve for four hours of mediation at no fee. A fee of $300 per hour will be charged after the initial four hours.

Special Master Pilot Program (effective September 2, 2014; remains in effect for 18 months).

Goal: To conserve judicial resources by referring complex discovery issues to Special Masters.

The Chief Administrative Judge will provide for the appointment of a pool of Special Masters, which shall consist of retired practitioners with substantial experience in complex commercial matters. The Commercial Division Justices designated to participate in this pilot program, together with the Office of Court Administration, will determine the procedures and forms to be used in the program. The Chief Administrative Judge will select the county or counties in which to implement a Special Masters program in the Commercial Division on a pilot basis. Justices participating in the program may, in their discretion and with the consent of the parties, designate matters for assignment to a Special Master to hear and report upon the matters assigned.

VII. ACCELERATED ADJUDICATION ACTIONS

Rule 9: accelerated adjudication actions. (new rule).

Goal: To provide a mechanism for litigants to reduce litigation costs by voluntarily opting into an accelerated process.

Written consent of the parties is necessary to enter the accelerated adjudication process. All pre-trial proceedings, including all discovery, pre-trial motions, and mandatory mediation, shall be completed and the parties shall be ready for trial within nine months from the date of filing of an RJI. This procedure is available in all actions except for class actions brought under Article 9 of the CPLR.

Parties in an accelerated adjudication proceeding irrevocably waive the following rights:

(1) any objections based on lack of personal jurisdiction or the doctrine of forum non conveniens ;

(2) the right to trial by jury;

(3) the right to recover punitive or exemplary damages;

(4) the right to any interlocutory appeal.

Significant discovery limitations (pertaining to ESI and non-ESI) are also imposed in accelerated adjudication actions unless the parties contract otherwise.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

United states.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

SEARCH NYCourts.gov

Commercial Division – Suffolk County

Commercial division - suffolk county.

Supreme Court, Suffolk County Supreme Court Complex 1 Court Street Riverhead, NY 11901

The Chief Judge's Task Force on Commercial Litigation in the 21st Century - Report

Electronic filing (e-filing) is mandatory in Suffolk County Supreme Court for Commercial Division and Medical Malpractice matters.

Notice of Assignment to The Commercial Division

Operational Info

Modifications to Commercial Division Rule 31

Uniform Standards for Assignment of Cases & Rules of Practice (22 NYCRR 202.70)

RJI Addendum

ADR Information:

Application

Roster of Neutrals

Mediation Forms

Referral Order

Initiation Form

Disposition Report