Commercial Litigation Update

By now, most New York practitioners are aware (or at least have heard) of the recent changes to CPLR 2106, which was amended as of January 1, 2024 to allow “any person” to submit an affirmation “in lieu of and with the same force and effect” as an affidavit in an action in New York.

This was a privilege previously reserved for New York attorneys, certain licensed professionals, and those physically located outside the United States. While the majority of the focus understandably has been on the impact of this legislation on litigants and other individuals who are no longer required to submit affidavits, the amendment also has the serious, but often overlooked, consequence of rendering the form of prior New York attorney affirmations ineffective and not properly sworn unless the affirmations contain the new, revised language required by the amendment.

Since 2018, seven states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New York, Utah, and Virginia—have enacted laws requiring specific disclosures in commercial financing transactions. Three of those enactments came in 2023, and similar bills are currently pending in a handful of other states.

While these disclosure laws share the same aim—to encourage competition and provide for a more informed decision-making process—they are quite varied with respect to the transactions and institutions to which they apply as well as the information that must be disclosed. And a ...

The statute of limitations is a powerful threshold defense for defendants in civil litigation.  Article 2 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) and other New York statutory provisions set forth deadlines by which parties must “interpose” their claims, lest they be barred from pursuing them.

The CPLR is clear that limitations periods are not to be trifled with—not even courts can extend them: “An action . . . must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless a different time is prescribed by law or a shorter time is prescribed by written ...

Shareholders who sue derivatively on behalf of a corporation are often faced with counterclaims against them as individuals. The issue of whether such counterclaims are properly interposed against a shareholder in their individual capacity is not typically a heavily contested issue in New York. However, this may soon change as a result of a recent decision in the case of Jean-Pascal Simon v. Francinvest, S.A., et. al., 2023 N.Y. Slip. Op. 32422[U] (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. July 7, 2023), where the court was confronted with arguments about the feasibility of such countersuits and ...

By now, the story of two New York attorneys facing scrutiny for citing nonexistent cases generated by the artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool ChatGPT has made national (and international) headlines. Late last month, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York sanctioned the attorneys and their firm $5,000. The court’s decision (Roberto Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) (ECF No. 54)) provides a humbling reminder of both an attorney’s responsibilities in ensuring the accuracy of his or her filings, and the limits of certain technologies in the legal profession.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Slattery v. Hochul, reversing the dismissal of a First Amendment challenge to New York Labor Law §203-e (also referred to as the “Boss Bill”). The Boss Bill prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions against employees based upon their reproductive health decisions, including “a decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service,” and also forbids employers from “accessing an employee’s personal information regarding the employee’s . . . reproductive health decision making.” The term “reproductive health decision making” necessarily would include an employee’s decision to have an abortion or use contraception. The Boss Bill, unlike Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, does not contain an exemption for religiously affiliated organizations.

The New York State Court Rule (the “Rule”), 22 NYCRR 202.20-d, that governs entity depositions is intended to streamline the method for examining entities. Although it is similar to FRCP 30(b)(6), it is not entirely the same. The differences between the Rule and FRCP 30(b)(6), as well as the fact that there is minimal case law interpreting the Rule, will likely lead to some confusion for commercial entities - and their general counsel - that receive a notice or subpoena to testify at a deposition for a case pending in New York State court. This blog post provides a brief overview of what is required by such a notice or subpoena and the related rights that are afforded to the commercial entity.

Once again, with a substantial backlog of cases—some of them potentially controversial—argued and pending decision, the Court continues to sail in relatively calm waters.

On November 24, 2022, New York’s Adult Survivors Act (“ASA”) (S.66A/A.648A) will go into effect and likely will usher in a tidal wave of litigation across the state. Employers will be impacted by the law, in addition to individuals, and the resulting litigation could span many years – particularly with the ongoing court delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, developing a proactive defense strategy for ASA claims and resolving potential insurance coverage issues in advance, is of vital importance as this date draws near.

Beginning on March 1, 2023, the statute of limitations for allegations under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Protection Law (“VGMVPL”) will be extended for two years to afford alleged victims of gender motivated violence a two-year lookback window to bring a civil action for claims that have been previously time barred. Individuals will have from March 1, 2023 to March 1, 2025 to commence a civil suit against such alleged wrongdoers and institutions where they may seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney’s fees and costs, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate under VGMVPL for participation in such crimes.

Recent legislation signed into law by President Biden on September 16, 2022 abolishes the statute of limitations for over a dozen federal civil causes of action relating to child sex abuse, continuing the trend throughout the country to reform statutes of limitations relating to child sex abuse. Known as the “Eliminating Limits to Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act of 2022” (Public Law No. 117-176), the Act abolishes the previous ten-year statute of limitations to commence a civil action for any person who, as a minor, was the victim of any of the offenses enumerated in the Act, including forced labor, sex trafficking of children, sexual abuse of a minor, sexual exploitation of children, and transportation of minors to engage in sexual conduct. The Act became effective on September 16, 2022.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is the long-awaited New York gun licensing decision that has been hotly debated since its filing. Especially in light of recent school shootings, that debate is likely to intensify now that the case has been decided. As many predicted, the decision, overturning the state’s statute, provides a stark split between the Court’s predominant conservatives and its liberals.

Recent New York legislation will afford a class of sexual abuse victims the opportunity to sue their abusers, where they previously would have been time-barred. On May 24, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Adult Survivors Act (“ASA”) (S.66A/A.648A), which creates a one-year lookback window for alleged survivors of sexual assault that occurred when they were over the age of 18 to sue their alleged abusers regardless of when the abuse occurred. The one-year window will begin six months from signing – on November 24, 2022 and will close on November 23, 2023. In 2019, New York extended the statute of limitations to 20 years for adults filing civil lawsuits for  certain enumerated sex offenses. However, that legislation only affected new cases and was not retroactive. In contrast, the ASA permits individuals who were over the age of 18 when any alleged abuse occurred to sue for civil damages regardless of the statute of limitations.

Many employers have granted their white collar workers increased flexibility to work remotely in response to the pandemic. As a result, some employees have moved away from the areas surrounding their offices and into places with lower costs or higher quality of living. In cases where an employee with a non-compete moves to a state such as California, which has a prohibition against any “contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind,” that can present potential problems for a Company. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. § 16600.

Three years ago, the United States Supreme Court confirmed in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 138 S. Ct. 1061 (2018) that claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) are subject to “concurrent jurisdiction,” meaning they can be asserted either in federal or state court and that a state court action cannot be removed to federal court. On the last day of this past term, the Supreme Court announced that it has now accepted certiorari in Pivotal Software, Inc. v. Tran in which it will address the follow-up question of whether the ...

Over the past 15 years, chief compliance officers (“CCOs”) for financial services firms have come under increased scrutiny as the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) have brought more frequent enforcement actions seeking to hold CCOs personally liable. CCOs understandably have been concerned about this trend and financial service firms have focused on the chilling effect that the enforcement actions may have on the vital role CCOs play in their organizations and the quality of the COO applicant pool.

The trend in New York State to provide relief for expired claims by waiving statutes of limitation in sex-abuse cases may be continuing. As its current session winds down, the New York State Legislature is considering legislation that would provide a “revival” one-year period of the statute of limitations within which survivors of adult sexual abuse may file civil claims against individuals, companies and institutions, even if the statute of limitations for the claims has expired, and/or the claims were previously dismissed because of late filing. Entitled “Adult ...

Long before the birth of Elvis Presley in 1935, and even longer before his recent 86^th birthday on January 8, 2021, King Arthur was the legendary king of choice, and his story was most completely told in Le Morte d'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory. Hence, we embrace the paraphrased allusion in the title above, to both Arthur and the King of Rock-n-Roll, who despite his absence from the public stage since 1977 remains a brand. Thus, Elvis is a good example of what a lay person would call post-mortem publicity rights, as his brand remains one today valued at over $300 million. What is also ...

We have previously discussed (here and here) the complex issues surrounding the resumption of jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. We cautioned that the various experimental efforts to resume jury trials taking place in courts around the country were likely to meet with a host of practical and jurisprudential problems. A few weeks later, it appears that our assessment was, if anything, too optimistic. Many of the states that had been taking first steps toward resuming jury trials in some form are now shutting down those experiments because of the spike in COVID-19 cases that is ...

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as “RICO,” was enacted to fight organized crime but has evolved into the bane of legitimate businesses. Along with criminal penalties that can only be enforced by federal prosecutors, RICO contains a provision allowing for civil lawsuits. The rewards for a successful civil RICO claim include mandatory treble damages and attorney’s fees. For this reason, civil RICO lawsuits have become a favorite of overzealous plaintiffs hoping to make headlines and scare legitimate businesses into quick settlements. And since private plaintiffs have a greater incentive to be “creative” than federal prosecutors, civil RICO cases often push the statute’s limits. But the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the infamous “Bridgegate” case, Kelly v. United States, may help decelerate this trend by limiting civil RICO claims in important ways.

In the Bridgegate case, three New Jersey state officials were charged with exacting political revenge against a local Democratic mayor for failing to endorse the Republican governor’s reelection bid. In what could have been a deleted scene from The Sopranos, the state officials ordered a “traffic study” that closed down some lanes for commuters in Fort Lee, New Jersey (the home of the Democratic Mayor) traveling across the George Washington Bridge into New York City. The “traffic study” had the predictable result of creating hours of gridlock that ensnared commuters, school buses, and even ambulances. That gridlock was, of course, the goal all along. In fact, upon hearing the news that the Democratic mayor would not endorse the Republican governor, one of the state officials emailed the other, advising: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

Federal prosecutors felt that this was more than petty political retribution and charged the trio of state officials with criminal violations of the federal wire fraud statute, which makes it a crime to use interstate wires (such as telephones and email) to effect “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” 18 U.S.C. § 1343. One of the officials pleaded guilty, and the other two were convicted at trial. The convictions were later affirmed on appeal by the Third Circuit.

On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, a District of Columbia trial court granted an insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. Plaintiff insureds (“Insureds”) own several restaurants in Washington D.C. that were forced to close and suffered serious revenue losses stemming from the Mayor’s orders to close non-essential businesses and ordering people to stay home. As a result, the Insureds made claims to Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange (the “Insurer”) under their policies that included coverage for “loss of ‘income’ and/or ‘rental income’” sustained “due to partial or total ‘interruption of business’ resulting directly from ‘loss’ or damage” to the property insured. The policy also stated that it “insures against direct physical ‘loss.’”

Dictionary Definitions Open to Interpretation

As the Court framed the issue, “[a]t the most basic level, the parties dispute whether the closure of the restaurants due to Mayor Bowser’s orders constituted a ‘direct physical loss’ under the policy.” To support their argument, the Insureds relied on dictionary definitions of “direct” as “[w]ithout intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate;” and “physical” as pertaining to things “[o]f or pertaining to matter, or the world as perceived by the senses; material as [opposed] to mental or spiritual.” The policy defined “loss,” as “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.”

The Insureds relied on these definitions to make three arguments. First, they argued that the loss of use of their restaurant properties was “direct” because the closures were the direct result of the Mayor’s orders without intervening action. The Court rejected that argument because those orders commanded individuals and businesses to take certain actions and “[s[tanding alone and absent intervening actions by individuals and businesses, the orders did not affect any direct changes to the properties.”

Second, the Insureds argued that their losses were “physical” because the COVID-19 virus is “material” and “tangible,” and because the harm they experienced was caused by the Mayor’s orders rather than diners being afraid to eat out. The Court also rejected that argument because the Insureds offered no evidence that COVID-19 was actually present on their properties at the time they were forced to close and the mayor’s orders did not impact the tangible structure of the properties.

Third, the Insureds argued that the policy’s definition of “loss” as encompassing either “loss” or “damage,” required the insurer to “treat the term ‘loss’ as distinct from ‘damage,’ which connotes physical damage to the property,” and thus “loss” incorporates “loss of use.” The Court rejected that argument and held that the words “direct” and “physical” modify the word “loss” and therefore any “loss of use” must be “caused, without the intervention of other persons or conditions, by something pertaining to matter—in other words, a direct physical intrusion [onto] the insured property.” The Court held that the Mayor’s orders did not constitute such a direct physical intrusion.

Sometimes a crisis can be an opportunity to embrace new technologies and changes that were already on the horizon – albeit at a much more expedited pace.  As employees are required to work remotely and practice social distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and several state governments (including New York and New Jersey) are moving (New York more quickly than New Jersey) to enable remote online notarization and keep businesses operating.

A Potential Federal Solution

On March 18, 2020, Senator Kevin Kramer, R-N.D. and Mark Warner, D-Va, introduced ...

On March 10, 2020, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), which regulates a wide variety of financial institutions, including banks, insurance companies, and investment advisors doing business in New York, issued a series of letters regarding the response to the Novel Coronavirus (“COVID-19”). In addition to providing guidance, DFS has asked all regulated financial institutions to provide “assurance” that they have plans to address the operational and financial risks associated with COVID-19. A copy of the letter to regulated financial ...

On June 19, 2019, the New York State Senate and Assembly passed legislation that would, if signed into law, broaden the scope of last year’s ban on clauses requiring employees to arbitrate sexual harassment claims so as to prohibit such clauses with respect to all types of discrimination claims. As reported on this blog, this ban on mandatory arbitration clauses was deemed invalid, as contrary to federal law, by the June 26, 2019 decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. No. 18-11528). It is too early ...