Commercial Case Notes analyzes legal topics of interest in recent decisions from or relating to New York’s Commercial Division
On July 23, 2025, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Water Energy Servs. LLC v. SK Capital Partners LP, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33073(U), dismissing a claim for breach of an oral contract for failure adequately to allege the formation of a contract . . . Continue reading Contract Claim Dismissed for Failure Adequately to Allege the Formation of a Contract
On July 31, 2025, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Cyberbit, Inc. v. Cloud Range Cyber, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33078(U), holding that a person who was not a party to an agreement was nonetheless bound by its forum selection clause because of his close relationship to the transaction . . . Continue reading Parties That Did Not Sign Agreement Bound by Forum Selection Clause Because of Close Relationship to Transaction
On August 12, 2025, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Pattern Energy Group LP v. Perillo, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33084(U), refusing to seal filings because their contents were harmful to a party’s reputation . . . Continue reading Court Refuses to Seal Arbitration Filings for Being Harmful to a Party’s Reputation
On July 17, 2025, Justice Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Talking Capital Windup LLC v. Omanoff, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33072(U), holding that the fact that a court order eventually was reversed is not grounds for vacating contempt orders for disobeying that order . . . Continue reading That Court Order Eventually Was Reversed is Not Grounds for Vacating Contempt Orders For Disobeying that Order
On July 29, 2025, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Ader v. Ader, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33045(U), holding that a defendant’s lack of funds was an insufficient basis for a duress affirmative defense to a breach of contract claim . . . Continue reading Defendant’s Lack of Funds Insufficient Basis for Duress Defense
On August 6, 2025, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Marcello v. MK Cuisine Global LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33048(U), holding that a denial of receipt of service, without more, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of proper service created by an affidavit of service . . . Continue reading Denial of Receipt, Without More, Insufficient to Overcome Presumption of Proper Service Created by Affidavit of Service
On July 28, 2025, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in EMC Presents Delphi LLC v. Delphi Studios LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33050(U), holding that a non-signatory was bound by an agreement’s forum selection clause . . . Continue reading Non-Signatory Bound by Agreement’s Forum Selection Clause
On July 17, 2025, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in JG Group Holdings LLC v. Kahlon, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33022(U), refusing to vacate a default judgment because of the movant’s failure adequately to show that it had potentially meritorious claims . . . Continue reading Default Not Vacated Because of Failure Adequately to Show Meritorious Claims
On July 18, 2025, Justice Bannon of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Robinson v. Pearl Delta Funding LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33023(U), dismissing an action in favor of a prior pending action even though the claims in the two actions were not identical . . . Continue reading Dismissal in Favor of Prior Pending Action Granted Despite Lack of Complete Identity of Claims
On July 24, 2025, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Prospect Capital Corp. v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, 2025 NY Slip Op. 32996(U), holding that when counsel for a party did not respond to an e-mail memorializing a stipulation, there was no binding stipulation, even though the parties might have reached an oral agreement . . . Continue reading Even if There is an Oral Agreement, When Counsel Did Not Respond to E-mail Memorializing a Stipulation, Stipulation is Not Binding
