Court Denies Extra Time for Service Based on Lack of Diligence

Court Denies Extra Time for Service Based on Lack of Diligence

On January 3, 2023, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Ardel Constr. & Design Group, Corp. v. VBG 990 AOA LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op. 50003(U), denying a motion to extend time to serve because of the plaintiff’s failure to diligently attempt to serve within the 120 days set by statute . . . Continue reading Court Denies Extra Time for Service Based on Lack of Diligence

Court May Dismiss Based on a Prior Pending Action Even When the Legal Theories are not Identical

Court May Dismiss Based on a Prior Pending Action Even When the Legal Theories are not Identical

On November 30, 2022, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Charles Condominiums, LLC v. Victor RPM First, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 34067(U), holding that a court may dismiss claims based on a prior pending action even when the legal theories are not identical . . . Continue reading Court May Dismiss Based on a Prior Pending Action Even When the Legal Theories are not Identical

Even When Contract Grants Party Absolute Discretion, That Discretion May not be Exercised Arbitrarily or Irrationally

Even When Contract Grants Party Absolute Discretion, That Discretion May not be Exercised Arbitrarily or Irrationally

On December 19, 2022, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in MLCJR, LLC v. PDP Group, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op. 34345(U), holding that even when a contract grants a party absolute discretion, that discretion may not be exercised arbitrarily or irrationally . . . Continue reading Even When Contract Grants Party Absolute Discretion, That Discretion May not be Exercised Arbitrarily or Irrationally

Whether Law Firm Partner was an Employee That Could Avoid Arbitration Outside California Question for Arbitrator to Decide

Whether Law Firm Partner was an Employee That Could Avoid Arbitration Outside California Question for Arbitrator to Decide

On December 29, 2022, the First Department issued a decision in Matter of Dentons US LLP v. Zhang, 2022 NY Slip Op. 07498, holding that whether a law firm partner was an employee for the purposes of Section 925 of the California Labor Code, which limits out-of-state arbitrations, was a question for the arbitrator to decide . . . Continue reading Whether Law Firm Partner was an Employee That Could Avoid Arbitration Outside California Question for Arbitrator to Decide