Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP

On October 15, 2024, Justice Margaret A. Chan denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and dismissed the action after finding that the return date on the motion had occurred before the defendants’ time to respond elapsed. In Starship Holdings, LLC, et al., v. Maxben Holdings, LLC, et al., Index No. 651427/2024, the plaintiffs initially commenced an action for repayment on a loan agreement and note by summons and notice. The summons and notice were served on defendants on March 21, 2024. Plaintiffs also filed a notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, setting a return date of April 9, 2024. As a result, the return date of the motion occurred only 19 days after service was completed on defendants—before the time either defendant was required to respond. See the full link below: https://lnkd.in/esxv2X5g

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. See the full post here: https://lnkd.in/e7JQ4e5F

On August 27, 2024, in Novum Energy Trading Inc. v. Transmontaigne Operating Co. L.P., Index No. 655283/2023, Justice Margaret A. Chan found all but one of a defendant’s eight Requests for Admission to be improper.  The case concerned whether an amendment to the parties’ contract extended the Service Term for all four of the tanks that the contract concerned, or whether, rather, it merely added an extra tank. See the full link here: https://lnkd.in/ek8G39AA

On September 25, 2024, Justice Nancy M. Bannon granted partial summary judgment on various claims amongst subcontractors and sub-subcontractors, and by them against sureties, relating to renovations at the Javits Center in Manhattan. The case is Interebar Fabricators LLC v C.B. Contr. Corp., Index No. 655852/2021. See the full link here: https://lnkd.in/eUNsBWW5

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. See the full link here: https://lnkd.in/eiq8-ewn

Schlam Stone & Dolan Partner Joshua Wurtzel Discusses Ins and Outs of U.C.C. Foreclosures A mezzanine loan is a type of commercial real-estate financing that is secured by an equity pledge in the entity that owns the underlying real estate. So if A owns the Property and B owns 100% of A, the borrower on a mezzanine loan will be B, and the collateral for the loan will be B’s 100% equity ownership of A. While mezzanine debt is typically riskier for a lender because the pledged equity is necessarily subject to the mortgage loan, upon default, a mezzanine lender does not need to file a judicial foreclosure action to foreclose, and can instead do a foreclosure on the equity pledge under the Uniform Commercial Code, or U.C.C. This type of foreclosure is much faster—typically done in 60 to 90 days—and does not require the filing of a lawsuit. In this short video, Schlam Stone & Dolan partner Joshua Wurtzel discusses how a U.C.C. foreclosure works and what a mezzanine lender has to do and consider to avoid successful borrower challenges to the process. See the full link here: https://lnkd.in/e3H8cbQd

On September 26, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Bloodhound Partners LLC v. Wearsafe Labs Holding LLC, Index No. 654718/2022, granting a motion for entry of a default judgment but denying attorneys' fees to plaintiffs on the ground that the purported fee-shifting clause on which plaintiffs relied lacked "clear language suggesting fee shifting in litigating," explaining: See the full link below: https://lnkd.in/efWdcM82

On October 3, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Fortress Credit Corp. v. Cohen, Index No. 651498/2024, rejecting defendant's argument that email exchanges between lender and borrower, which never resulted in a signed agreement, were sufficient to extend borrower's repayment deadline under the loan documents, explaining: See the full link: https://lnkd.in/esGSM8hf

On October 7, 2024, Justice Melissa A. Crane of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in EXRP 14 Holdings LLC v. LS-14 Ave LLC, Index No. 652698/2022, holding that a defendant may be liable for tortious interference with contract when the defendant causes the plaintiff to breach its own contract with a nonparty, explaining: See the full link: https://lnkd.in/e27bXqDE

Schlam Stone & Dolan partners Samuel Butt and Thomas Kissane recently published an article in the New York Law Journal on several significant decisions from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Judge Natasha C. Merle dismissed claims based on res judicata. Judge Frederic Block granted a motion for a new trial due to an excessive damage award. And Judge Brian M. Cogan dismissed qui tam claims under the False Claims Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See full article below.