Upcoming Arguments of Interest in the Court of Appeals

Upcoming oral arguments in the Court of Appeals that may be of interest to commercial litigators include the following:

To be argued April 26, 2017:

Case No. 57: Burlington Insurance v. NYC Transit Auth. (“Insurance--Liability Insurance--Construction of policy--Whether the Appellate Division erred in determining that defendants were additional insureds under plaintiff insurer's general liability policy with a contractor, where the accident for which coverage was sought was not caused by the contractor's negligence or fault.”). See the First Department’s decision here.

To be argued May 2, 2017:

Case No. 62: Wilson v. Dantas (“Courts--Jurisdiction--Long-arm jurisdiction--International financial transaction--Transaction of business in New York--Execution of contracts in New York--Whether the Appellate Division correctly held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that defendants transacted business in NewYork and that plaintiff's causes of action arise from defendant's New York contacts; Whether the Appellate Division correctly rejected defendant's contention that the action should be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens.”). See our previous post about the First Department’s decision here.
Case No. 63: D&R Global Selections, S.L. v. Bodega Olegaria Falcon Pineiro (“Courts--Jurisdiction--Lack of basis for personal and long-arm jurisdiction--Whether New York courts possessed subject matter jurisdiction over this action, arising from an oral agreement by the nondomiciliary plaintiff broker to procure an American importer for the nondomiciliary defendant winery's products, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1314(b)(4), which requires a showing of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302.”). See the First Department’s decision here, and our previous post about the Court of Appeals’ decision granting leave to appeal here.
Case No. 64: Town of Amherst v. Granite State Insurance (“Arbitration--Agreement to Arbitrate--Whether the Appellate Division erred in determining that it was for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide the validity and effect of a subsequent agreement to litigate a claim that was subject to arbitration under the terms of the parties' insurance policy.”). See the Fourth Department’s decision here.