Commercial Division Blog: Current Developments in the Commercial Divisions of the New York State Courts

On October 16, 2024, Justice Meilssa A. Crane denied a plaintiff’s motion to amend in substantial part, in a case brought by companies affiliated with the rapper 50 Cent seeking to recover for alleged misconduct by various Jim Beam liquor companies, their affiliates, or persons alleged to have participated in misconduct with them. The case is Sire Spirits, LLC v. Beam Suntory, Inc., Index No. 650799/2024. Read More

On March 11, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok denied a plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add new theories of liability after the Appellate Division dismissed his original claims. The decision in Finkelstein v. U.S. Bank, National Associate, As Trustee, Index No. 650849/2021, flagged a number of problems with the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, including that the claims were untimely and did not relate back to the original complaint. But the Court also noted that the Plaintiff had not shown a reasonable excuse for his delay in moving to amend to add the new claims, rejecting his argument that dismissal on appeal had altered the law in a way that justified amendment. The Court explained: Read More

In a Decision and Order, dated October 13, 2023, in Katzoff v. BSP Agency, LLC., Index No. 655823/2020, Justice Margaret A. Chan granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to add several defendants. The Court granted the motion, finding no prejudice or undue delay, and that the claims were not insufficient as a matter of law. As to prejudice and undue delay, the Court the explained: Read More

On April 5, 2023, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A. Ace American Insurance Company, Index No. 653702/2020. The Court granted Plaintiff National Union’s motion for leave to amend its complaint “to change its claim from breach of the duty good faith and fair dealing under New York law to equitable subrogation under Georgia law.” The Court held that the motion should be granted as the defendant showed no prejudice or surprise from the proposed amendment. The Court explained: Read More