Court Ordered to Reconsider Bond Amount Because it Was Insufficiently Related to the Potential Damage That Could Result From the Injunction
Commercial Case Notes / Injunctions, Attachments and Other Preliminary Remedies

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

Fiduciary’s Conflicts of Interest, Even if Permitted by Contract, Still are Relevant to Balance of the Equities
Commercial Case Notes / Fiduciaries / Injunctions, Attachments and Other Preliminary Remedies

Fiduciary’s Conflicts of Interest, Even if Permitted by Contract, Still are Relevant to Balance of the Equities

On March 16, 2026, Justice d’Auguste of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Namdar Fordham Landing LLC v. Fordham Landing Preferred Sponsor, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 31005(U), holding that a fiduciary’s conflicts of interest, even if permitted by contract, were still relevant to the balance of the equities in deciding an injunction . . . Continue reading Fiduciary’s Conflicts of Interest, Even if Permitted by Contract, Still are Relevant to Balance of the Equities

Court Properly Ordered $20.5 Million Undertaking as Condition of Vacating Notice of Pendency
Commercial Case Notes / Injunctions, Attachments and Other Preliminary Remedies / Real Property

Court Properly Ordered $20.5 Million Undertaking as Condition of Vacating Notice of Pendency

On November 19, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in American Premium Realty Group, LLC v. 37-19 Realty, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 06301, affirming that imposition of a $20.5 million undertaking as a condition of vacating a notice of pendency . . . Continue reading Court Properly Ordered $20.5 Million Undertaking as Condition of Vacating Notice of Pendency

Court Grants Attachment in Support of Arbitration
Arbitration, Mediation and Other ADR / Commercial Case Notes / Injunctions, Attachments and Other Preliminary Remedies

Court Grants Attachment in Support of Arbitration

On July 21, 2025, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP v. Desktop Metal, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 32953(U), granting an injunction is support of an arbitration, holding, regarding the justification for the attachment, that any arbitration award might be rendered ineffectual without the attachment . . . Continue reading Court Grants Attachment in Support of Arbitration

Decision Analyzes Categories of Costs Recoverable from an Injunction Undertaking
Commercial Case Notes / Injunctions, Attachments and Other Preliminary Remedies

Decision Analyzes Categories of Costs Recoverable from an Injunction Undertaking

On February 13, 2025, Justice Bannon of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in CMB Export Infrastructure Inv. Group 48, LP v. Motcomb Estates, Ltd., 2025 NY Slip Op. 30572(U), discussing the categories of costs recoverable from an injunction undertaking . . . Continue reading Decision Analyzes Categories of Costs Recoverable from an Injunction Undertaking

Dispute Over the Distribution of Revenue Does Not Justify the Appointment of a Receiver
Commercial Case Notes / Injunctions, Attachments and Other Preliminary Remedies

Dispute Over the Distribution of Revenue Does Not Justify the Appointment of a Receiver

On December 16, 2024, Justice Ruchelsman of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Pesochinsky v. Gurariy, 2024 NY Slip Op. 34371(U), holding that a dispute over the distribution of revenue did not justify the appointment of a receiver . . . Continue reading Dispute Over the Distribution of Revenue Does Not Justify the Appointment of a Receiver