Practice point: The process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, pursuant to CPLR 308(2).
Students should note that plaintiff's evidence that a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed to defendant's correct residence address creates a presumption of proper mailing and of receipt.
Case: C&H Import & Export, Inc. v. MNA Global, Inc., NY Slip Op 09205 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Motion practice.
December 23, 2010
December 22, 2010
Corporations.
Practice point: For corporations to be alter egos, the parent must directly intervene in the subsidiary’s management so that the subsidiary's indeces of incorporation, directors and officers are completely ignored.
Students should note that a parent company will be liable for a subsidiary’s torts only if it exercises complete dominion and control over the subsidiary.
Case: Broxmeyer v. United Capital Corp., NY Slip Op 09204 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
Students should note that a parent company will be liable for a subsidiary’s torts only if it exercises complete dominion and control over the subsidiary.
Case: Broxmeyer v. United Capital Corp., NY Slip Op 09204 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
December 21, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: An unsworn accident report is not evidence in admissible form sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.
Students should note that the report may be admissible as a business record, pursuant to CPLR 4518(a), if it (1) was required as a condition of employment, (2) was made at or about the time of the accident, and (3) was maintained in the regular course of business.
Case: Harrison v. Bailey, NY Slip Op 09221 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Corporations.
Students should note that the report may be admissible as a business record, pursuant to CPLR 4518(a), if it (1) was required as a condition of employment, (2) was made at or about the time of the accident, and (3) was maintained in the regular course of business.
Case: Harrison v. Bailey, NY Slip Op 09221 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Corporations.
December 20, 2010
Employment Law.
Practice point: A petition to challenge the termination of probationary employment on substantive grounds must be brought within four months of the effective date of termination, pursuant to CPLR 217[1].
Students should note that the time to commence such a proceeding is not extended by the petitioner's pursuit of administrative remedies.
Case: Kahn v. New York City Dept. of Educ., NY Slip Op 09168 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion pratice.
Students should note that the time to commence such a proceeding is not extended by the petitioner's pursuit of administrative remedies.
Case: Kahn v. New York City Dept. of Educ., NY Slip Op 09168 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion pratice.
December 17, 2010
Corporations.
Practice point: Members of an organization entering into a contract with the organization may be bound by duly enacted organizational by-laws compelling arbitration.
Students should note that a party will not be compelled to arbitrate absent a clear, explicit, and unequivocal agreement to do so.
Case: Dean v Harvestime Tabernacle United Pentecostal Church Intl., NY Slip Op 09211 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Employment Law.
Students should note that a party will not be compelled to arbitrate absent a clear, explicit, and unequivocal agreement to do so.
Case: Dean v Harvestime Tabernacle United Pentecostal Church Intl., NY Slip Op 09211 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Employment Law.
December 16, 2010
Torts.
Practice point: Plaintiff’s subjective claim of continuing pain and the inability to work for more than 90 days is not dispositive in claiming a 90/180 category serious injury.
Students should note that even where there is objective proof, the claim may fail if there is a preexisting condition.
Case: Rosa-Diaz v. Maria Auto Corp., NY Slip Op 08995 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Corporations
Students should note that even where there is objective proof, the claim may fail if there is a preexisting condition.
Case: Rosa-Diaz v. Maria Auto Corp., NY Slip Op 08995 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Corporations
December 15, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: A court has the inherent power, sua sponte or on motion, to reconsider and vacate its prior decision before issuing an order thereon.
Students should note that the claim-splitting doctrine does not preclude a tenant from seeking damages in an action separate from that in which he had sought to be restored to possession.
Case: Rostant v. Swersky, NY Slip Op 08987 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Torts.
Students should note that the claim-splitting doctrine does not preclude a tenant from seeking damages in an action separate from that in which he had sought to be restored to possession.
Case: Rostant v. Swersky, NY Slip Op 08987 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Torts.
December 14, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: A defendant must plead the affirmative defense of statute of frauds in order to rely on statutory provisions requiring an agreement to be reduced to a writing (General Obligations Law §§ 5-701, 5-1103, 5-1105).
Students should note that defendant's trial motion to amend the pleadings to assert these provisions will be denied if the motion was interposed after the close of plaintiff's evidence .
Case: Ryan v. Kellogg Partners Institutional Servs., NY Slip Op 08983 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.
Students should note that defendant's trial motion to amend the pleadings to assert these provisions will be denied if the motion was interposed after the close of plaintiff's evidence .
Case: Ryan v. Kellogg Partners Institutional Servs., NY Slip Op 08983 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.
December 13, 2010
Torts.
Practice point: A claim against a municipal employee who was acting within the scope of his employment will be dismissed if the notice of claim is not timely served, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i.
Students should note that defendant is not obliged to advise plaintiff of the untimely service, or to plead it as an affirmative defense.
Case: Dorce v. United Rentals N. Am., Inc., NY Slip Op 08894 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
Students should note that defendant is not obliged to advise plaintiff of the untimely service, or to plead it as an affirmative defense.
Case: Dorce v. United Rentals N. Am., Inc., NY Slip Op 08894 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
December 10, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: Leave to amend a complaint will be freely granted if the proposed amendment will not prejudice or surprise the defendant, is not patently devoid of merit, and is not plainly insufficient, pursuant to CPLR 3025[b].
Students should note that punitive damages are recoverable in a medical malpractice action only where defendant's conduct evinces a high degree of moral culpability or willful or wanton negligence or recklessness.
Case: Dmytryszyn v. Herschman, NY Slip Op 08893 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Torts.
Students should note that punitive damages are recoverable in a medical malpractice action only where defendant's conduct evinces a high degree of moral culpability or willful or wanton negligence or recklessness.
Case: Dmytryszyn v. Herschman, NY Slip Op 08893 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Torts.
Motion practice.
Practice point: Leave to amend a complaint will be freely granted if the proposed amendment will not prejudice or surprise the defendant, is not patently devoid of merit, and is not plainly insufficient, pursuant to CPLR 3025[b].
Students should note that punitive damages are recoverable in a medical malpractice action only where defendant's conduct evinces a high degree of moral culpability or willful or wanton negligence or recklessness.
Case: Dmytryszyn v. Herschman, NY Slip Op 08893 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Students should note that punitive damages are recoverable in a medical malpractice action only where defendant's conduct evinces a high degree of moral culpability or willful or wanton negligence or recklessness.
Case: Dmytryszyn v. Herschman, NY Slip Op 08893 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)