Patterson Belknap

In a recent decision in Tsung Tsin Ass’n v. Tian Xiang Zhu, Index No. 651584/2023, Doc. No. 213, 2023 BL 426536 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Nov. 16, 2023), Justice Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division took the rare step of striking a defendant’s answer for repeated discovery violations.  This decision provides an example

On July 17, 2023, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision extending the time for service and permitting the Plaintiff in Zantaz Enter. Archive Solution, LLC v. Adecco IT Servs., Inc., Index No. 656419/2022, Doc. No. 16, 191 N.Y.S.3d 922 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. July 17, 2023), to serve process

On June 9, 2023, Justice Robert Reed of the New York State Court, Commercial Division, issued a decision in Trump v. Trump, 192 N.Y.S.3d 891 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 9, 2023).  This decision largely denied Mary Trump’s motion to dismiss the claims brought by former president Donald Trump alleging that she breached a settlement

Judge Richard Platkin of Albany County recently handed down a stark reminder to Defendant Walid Darwish: everyone has to follow the rules of the road, even the person who writes the rules and owns all the cars.  On April 26, 2023, Judge Platkin denied Darwish’s motion to dismiss in all respects, filed in response to

This post originally appeared in the New York Law Journal. The court’s decision in Mallory could have profound implications for larger-sized companies that operate in multiple states throughout the country. And nowhere is this truer than in New York, where the state’s status as a global hotspot for foreign investment has attracted myriad out-of-state companies

On April 28, 2023, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued decisions on motions to bifurcate proceedings, compel discovery, and impose sanctions in ASM Capital, LP v. Four Wood Capital Partners, LLC, Index No. 657238/2019, 78 Misc.3d 1230(a) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 28, 2023).  The decisions provide examples of both common discovery

In Haart v. Scaglia[1], Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division partially granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.  The Court found that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues and facts that were previously decided in a Delaware case. Background This

New York Business Corporation Law (“BCL”) sections 1104[1] and 1104-a[2] permit shareholders holding a certain percentage of shares[3] in a corporation to petition for judicial dissolution of that corporation.  On March 8, 2023, Judge Fidel E. Gomez of the Commercial Division resoundingly rejected the petition of one such shareholder, Daniel Ilich, because