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

On October 3, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied a motion to stay arbitration brought by an employee against his former employer, holding that the employer’s decision to seek urgent protective relief from the Court did not waive its right to arbitrate. In Jason Owen v. Array U.S. Inc., et al., Index No. 651471/2022, Jason Owen asserted claims for breach of contract in court against his employer, Array, based upon alleged wrongful termination and denial of compensation. During the briefing of a motion to dismiss in the case, Owen filed several documents on the public docket that Array moved to seal as confidential. The Court granted the sealing motion. Array then initiated a JAMS arbitration proceeding, claiming that Owen had misappropriated confidential information that had been publicly disclosed in the court filings. Owen responded by moving to permanently stay the arbitration on the ground that Array had waived its right to arbitrate. Read More

On June 7, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted a motion to seal certain documents filed on the Court’s public docket that contained sensitive business and financial information. In Tremor Video, Inc. v. Alphonso Inc. n/k/a LG ADS, et al., Index No. 653266/2021, the Court noted that there is “a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” and that, because this right “is of constitutional dimension, any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives, such as a need for secrecy that outweighs the public’s right to access.” Nevertheless, certain records did deserve sealing. The Court explained: Read More

On March 5, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok granted a motion to compel discovery and declassify certain information marked by the Defendants as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” The court in Richmond Global Compass Fund Management GP, LLC, et al. v. Decio Nascimento, et al., Index No. 654190/2021, concluded that Defendants could not limit the provision of certain information solely to the Plaintiff’s attorney even if Defendants feared that the Plaintiff would use that information to tortiously interfere with Defendants’ current and prospective business relations. The Court explained, in part: Read More