Recently Retired Justices Bransten, Kornreich, Ramos, Schweitzer, and Demarest Reflect on Commercial Division’s Past, Present and Future
February 28, 2019
At the New York City Bar Association the evening of February 25th, five recently retired justices of the Commercial Division—Hon. Eileen Bransten, Hon. Shirley W. Kornreich, Hon. Charles E. Ramos, Hon. Melvin L. Schweitzer, and moderator Hon. Carolyn E. Demarest—convened for a panel entitled “The Commercial Division: Past, Present and Future.” Here is a summary of some of the topics discussed by the panel:
History of the Commercial Division. Before the Commercial Division, commercial cases were heard in New York County’s Special Term, Part 1, a forum marked by chaos and disengaged justices. In Special Term, Part 1, there was no continuity and no monitoring of discovery. Opinions were generally drafted by the law department. Several of the panelists remarked that when they were in private practice, they had no faith that their clients would be treated fairly in Special Term, Part 1.
When it was first created, no judges were interested in sitting in the Commercial Division, as it had no rules and had not yet proved successful. Nowadays, by contrast, many view the Commercial Division as a stepping-off point to the Appellate Division. At a recent luncheon with judges from the Southern District, the federal judges complained that the Commercial Division was “taking all the good cases.”
Development of the Commercial Division Rules. The Rules began from discussions among judges about how to resolve certain common problems. The judges had similar, but not identical, part rules. Justice Ramos credited Robert L. Haig (who was in attendance, author of the exhaustive treatise on commercial litigation in New York courts) with creating uniform rules and then forming an advisory council. Justice Bransten emphasized that each new Rule is carefully considered and debated before it is enacted, going through multiple rounds of input from the advisory council, the chief counsel of court administration, board of judges, and public comment.
Effectiveness of the Rules. The panel generally agreed that the Rules have been effective because they allow individualism and flexibility to each part. For example, Justice Kornreich noted that the flexibility afforded by the Rules allowed her to make her procedures conform to the expectations of practitioners accustomed to the federal courts. The justices also discussed variations in their part rules concerning affidavits for direct examination and resolution of discovery disputes.
Common Mistakes Made by Practitioners. Throughout the evening, as well as in response to a specific question from the audience, the panelists shared the following tidbits of advice for attorneys in the Commercial Division:
- Motions to dismiss should be utilized as much as possible, to clean the pleadings (and the scope of discovery) of non-meritorious claims, as well as to give the judge a “feel” for the case.
- Unsolicited letters to the court should be avoided—if in doubt about whether a letter should be sent to chambers, ask the clerk in advance.
- Preliminary conferences are an important opportunity address the merits and educate the judge about the case, as well as to give the judge a sense of the potential usefulness of ADR.
- Take care to read the Commercial Division Rules and Part Rules carefully. Justice Bransten believed that there should be stricter enforcement of the Rules.
- Be aware of differences between federal and state procedural law, and do not confuse the two.
- Take the court seriously—do not send in per-diem attorneys unfamiliar with the case.
Is the Commercial Division Elitist? The panel addressed this question last, and generally agreed that the Commercial Division was not elitist, although Justice Ramos conceded that it might appear so from the outside. Justice Schweitzer felt strongly that as the business center of the United States, if not the world, New York should devote extra resources to its commercial litigation courts to the extent necessary. Other benefits from the Commercial Division that justified its extra costs included:
- The Commercial Division has made other Parts more efficient by not having to oversee trials of these matters;
- High value cases attract higher-quality litigants who operate more efficiently and require less of the court’s time and resources;
- The Commercial Division serves as a laboratory for creative solutions to issues affecting other courts; and
- The Commercial Division does not really require so much extra resources—simply one extra clerk per Part.
Please subscribe to the New York Commercial Division Practice blog and receive an email notification when a new post is published.