- Posted: March 24, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Wholesale Failure To Pay Earned Commissions Does Not Constitute Violation Of New York Labor Law § 193
On January 23, 2025, Justice Melissa Crane granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for unpaid commissions pursuant to New York Labor Law § 193. Lichter v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., Index No. 651558/2022. Plaintiff claimed that defendants withheld $125,000 in commissions that he was owed, in violation of New York Labor Law § 193, which “prohibits an employer from making any deduction from an employee’s wage unless permitted by law or authorized by the employees for certain purposes.” In dismissing the claim, the Court explained: Read More
- Posted: March 21, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Quashes Subpoena Based On Two-Year Delay In Seeking Disclosure From A Third Party
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: Read More
- Posted: March 19, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Faces “Catch-22 Problem” Of Whether To Order Production Of Privileged Documents To Plaintiff Claiming Legal Malpractice Where Disputes Remained Over Whether Plaintiff Was Actually Attorneys’ Client
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: Read More
- Posted: March 17, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Partnership Agreement Requiring Notice Of Breach Be Given “By The Partnership” Means Notice Must Be Styled As Coming From The Partnership Or On Its Behalf, Not Simply From A Limited Partner
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: Read More
- Posted: March 14, 2025 / Commercial Division Blog
Court Orders In Camera Submission Of Assertedly Privileged Documents In Legal Malpractice Action To Resolve Threshold Question Of Attorney-Client Relationship
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. Read More
Load More
