On March 24, 2025, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Aareal Capital Corp. v. 462BDWY Land, L.P., 2025 NY Slip Op. 30952(U), denying a discovery motion for failure to comply with the Commercial Division Rule 14 dispute resolution process, explaining:
Defendants’ cross motion is for an order directing the original plaintiffs to fulfill their discovery obligations as parties, pursuant to the deadlines agreed to in the court-ordered preliminary conference order. They argue that the counsel for original plaintiffs ACC and Aareal Bank despite accepting service of the discovery demands, nonetheless stated that neither original plaintiff has any interest in the litigation.
Plaintiffs counter that the cross-motion should be denied as procedurally improper, referring to Rule 14 of the Commercial Division Rules that provides for discovery disputes to be resolved through court conference as opposed to motion practice. Plaintiffs claim that the Loan Defendants did not take these measures before filing their cross-motion and consequently have run afoul of Rule 14. Plaintiffs argue that the cross-motion was unnecessary because original plaintiffs never refused to comply with the discovery requests in accordance with the deadlines requested by the Loan Defendants.
At the outset, based on plaintiffs’ response in opposition to defendants’ cross· motion, it appears that the apparent dispute that served as the basis for defendants’ cross·motion has been resolved. But even if it were not resolved, defendants have not yet attempted to follow the Rule 14 process to resolve any conflict prior to submit their cross-motion. Given that defendants did not comply with this court’s rules with respect to identifying and notifying the court of discovery disputes or plaintiffs’ purported non-compliance with the preliminary conference order the request to issue an order directing plaintiffs to comply with discovery demands is denied without prejudice.
To the extent any dispute still exists between the parties, defendants shall submit a Rule 14 letter within two weeks of this order. Such a letter must include a representation that the party has conferred with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the letter or shall indicate good cause as to why no such consultation occurred.
(Internal citations omitted).