Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP

On February 20, 2025, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously held that a limited partnership agreement requiring notice of a breach be given “by the Partnership” means the notice must be styled as actually coming from the Partnership or on its behalf, not merely from one of its limited partners.?In?Karoline Molberg, et al, v. Phoenix Cayman Ltd, et al., Case No. 2023-05964,?a for-cause removal provision of the agreement required notice of any breach come “from the Partnership.”?Plaintiff, a limited partner, sent a letter purporting to give notice of a breach to the general partner.?The lower court denied a motion to dismiss made by the general partner on the basis that “multiple correspondences from limited partners” had noted the breach.?The First Department disagreed and reversed.?It explained: See the full link here: https://lnkd.in/e57HxCTF

On January 31, 2025, Justice Melissa A. Crane ordered?in camera?review of certain purportedly privileged documents in a legal malpractice case, noting that conflicting contentions over whether the plaintiff was ever actually a client of defendants presented a “catch-22 problem.”?In?Genesis Reoc Company LLC, et al. v. Stuart D. Poppel, et al., Index No. 156733/2017, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were their former attorneys and sued for malpractice.?The attorneys had represented other parties in the underlying transactions at issue, and during discovery, they withheld communications with those clients on the basis of privilege.?The attorneys also contended that the plaintiff had never actually been a client of theirs.?The Court ordered?in camera?review to address the threshold question of whether an attorney-client relationship existed, explaining: See the full link here: https://lnkd.in/eC8s3rE3

On January 28, 2025, Justice Nancy M. Bannon granted a motion to quash a third-party subpoena seeking deposition testimony and the production of documents on the basis that the subpoenaing party had waited too long to seek the disclosures.?In?Arlus Owners LLC, et al. v. 829 Mad. Ave. LLC, et al., Index No. 653842/2022,?the defendant served the subpoena on a real estate broker just before the deadline for completing discovery and filing the note of issue and certificate of readiness.?The Court granted the motion to quash, explaining: See the full link here: https://lnkd.in/etaJsnsh

On January 23, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok granted plaintiffs summary judgment as to liability on fiduciary breach, reserving the issue of damages.??Seaton v. Babad,?Index No. 654196/2021. See full link here: https://lnkd.in/ehy6Ad-w

On January 31, 2025, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted in part a motion to amend by a defendant/counterclaimant challenging the enforcement of a guarantee, finding that any argument that certain of the proposed counterclaims were barred by res judicata did not support denial of amendment.??JG Group Holdings LLC v. Kahlon,?Index No. 652196/2020. See full link here: https://lnkd.in/eMDnzuC7

On January 31, 2025, Justice Melissa A. Crane resolved a motion to compel by directing?in camera?production of certain documents to inform a threshold inquiry as to whether or not plaintiffs and defendants had an attorney-client relationship.??Genesis REOC, Company, LLC v. Poppel,?Index No. 156733/2017. See full link here: https://lnkd.in/eQTMrD5m

On January 21, 2025, Justice Margaret A. Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in?Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc. v. Wiesner Products Inc., Index No. 651896/2024, denying defendant's motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence and holding that, contrary to defendant's argument, an email from defendant stating "Understood and will do" in response to plaintiff's purported improper termination of an exclusive-brokerage agreement was not, as a matter of law, a waiver by defendant of strict compliance with the term and termination clauses of the agreement, explaining: See full link here: https://lnkd.in/eDUzykCj

On January 31, 2025, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in?Fortress Credit Corp. v. Cohen, Index No. 651498/2024, issuing a pre-judgment restraining notice against, and ordering an enforcement deposition of, defendant following plaintiff's successful motion for summary judgment, explaining: See the full link here: https://lnkd.in/eh3v_Kpy

The Administrative Board of Courts is seeking public comment on a proposal recommended by the Commercial Division Advisory Council to?Amend Rule 11 of the Rules of the Commercial Division Supreme Court?to require parties to automatically exchange certain delineated categories of discovery at the outset of any litigation pending in the Commercial Division.??Inter alia, the proposal would require the following initial disclosures: See full link here: https://lnkd.in/eFh3C_BQ

On January 22, 2025, Justice Nancy M. Bannon issued a Decision and Order in?Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. PEI Global Partners Holdings LLC, Index No. 651268/2024, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds the action was barred by res judicata based on prior FINRA arbitrations.?Plaintiff had commenced separate arbitrations against four prior employees who founded defendant PEI Global Partners Holdings LLC, and a fifth arbitration against PEI Global Partners LLC, a broker-dealer wholly owned by the defendant.?Although Defendant could not be made a party to the prior arbitrations as it was not a FINRA member and had no agreement to arbitrate before FINRA, the Court explained: See full link here: https://lnkd.in/e_ah3JwU