All Lundin PLLC Blogs

New York County Courthouse (Justices Borrok, Chan, Sohen, Crane, Masley, Ostrager, Reed and Schecter)

New Controlling Member Not Entitled to Pre-Change of Control Privileged Communications if They Related to a Dispute in Which Old and New Controlling Members Were Adverse

On April 9, 2026, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Chaowai 101 AOA LLC v. 101 A of A LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 31493(U), holding that the new controlling member of a business was not entitled to pre-change of control privileged communications if they related to a dispute in which the old and new controlling members were adverse . . . Continue reading New Controlling Member Not Entitled to Pre-Change of Control Privileged Communications if They Related to a Dispute in Which Old and New Controlling Members Were Adverse

New York County Courthouse (Justices Borrok, Chan, Sohen, Crane, Masley, Ostrager, Reed and Schecter)

Court May Not, In Confirming Arbitral Award, Award Pre-Award Interest if the Arbitrator Did Not

On April 9, 2026, Justice Patel of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Dilascia v. Lemonis, 2026 NY Slip Op. 31505(U), holding that a court may not grant pre-award interest if the arbitrator declines to do so . . . Continue reading Court May Not, In Confirming Arbitral Award, Award Pre-Award Interest if the Arbitrator Did Not

New York County Courthouse (Justices Borrok, Chan, Sohen, Crane, Masley, Ostrager, Reed and Schecter)

If Claims Are Subject to Arbitration, the Remedy is a Stay, Not Dismissal

On April 9, 2026, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Otterbourg P.C. v. Cretella, 2026 NY Slip Op. 31506(U), holding that if claims are subject to arbitration, the proper procedural remedy is a stay pending arbitration, not dismissal . . . Continue reading If Claims Are Subject to Arbitration, the Remedy is a Stay, Not Dismissal

Appellate Division First Department Courthouse

Court Ordered to Reconsider Bond Amount Because it Was Insufficiently Related to the Potential Damage That Could Result From the Injunction

On April 14, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 02226, ordering a trial court to reconsider the amount of a bond because it was insufficiently related to the damage that could result from an injunction . . . Continue reading Court Ordered to Reconsider Bond Amount Because it Was Insufficiently Related to the Potential Damage That Could Result From the Injunction