Easements by prescription.

Practice point: An easement by prescription is demonstrated by proof of the adverse, open and notorious, and continuous use of the subject property for the prescriptive period.

Student note: Where the plaintiff demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, the open and notorious, continuous, and undisputed use of the subject property, it is presumed that the use was adverse, and the burden shifts to the opponent of the alleged prescriptive easement to show that the use was permissive.

Case: Ducasse v. D’Alonzo, NY Slip Op 08090 (2d Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue: Res judicata and collateral estoppel.

Stipulations.

Practice point: Oral stipulations entered into in open court by counsel on behalf of their clients are binding, pursuant to CPLR 2104.

Student note: Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside . A party will be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident.

Case: Caroli v. Allstate Ins. Co., NY Slip Op 08086 (2d Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue: Easements by prescription.

Admissibility of third-party business records.

Practice point: The court admitted into evidence certain third-party business records pursuant to the party admission exception to the hearsay rule. The documents were bills of lading generated by defendant's agent, a stevedore, in the course of its duties for defendant, and were therefore receivable against defendant.

Student note: The documents were also admissible as third-party business records. While no representative of the stevedore testified as to the foundation for their introduction into evidence, the bills of lading were created in the agent's performance of its contractual duties and therefore were sufficiently reliable to be admissible without such testimony.

Case: K & K Enters., Inc. v. Stemcor USA Inc., NY Slip Op 07394 (1st Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Monday’s issue: Stipulations.

Motion for leave to renew.

Practice point: Defendants' motion for leave to renew their motion to vacate an order and ensuing judgment entered on default was denied because the self-styled “new facts" submitted on renewal in the form of affidavits of merit could have been submitted on the prior motion to vacate the default judgment, and defendants failed to offer a reasonable justification for the failure to do so, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][3].

Student note: Defendants’ claim that their former counsel mistakenly made the prior motion pursuant to CPLR 2221, which did not require the submission of an affidavit of merit, was undermined by counsel's identification of the motion as one to vacate a prior order and judgment.

Case: DC Media Capital LLC v. Sivan, NY Slip Op 07391 (1st Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue: Admissibility of third-party business records.

Liability for a fall down a winding staircase.

Practice point: Plaintiff allegedly was injured in a fall down defendant-premises owner’s winding staircase. Summary judgment was denied because the owner had a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition, and the configuration of the winding staircase and the partial absence of a handrail at its turn raise triable issues as to whether defendants were on constructive notice of a dangerous condition.

Student note: There was no triable issue as to whether the stairs were in violation of Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-375(e)(4) and (f). The stairs are not "interior stairs" within the meaning of the Administrative Code since they did not serve as a required exit, that is, as a required means of egress from the interior of building to an open exterior space, pursuant to Administrative Code § 27-232.

Case: Katz v. Blank Rome Tenzer Greenblatt, NY Slip Op 07377 (1st Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue: Motion for leave to renew.

Fees for services while waiting for executed letter of intent.

Practice point: Appellate Division found that the motion court confused defendants' counterclaim for legal and consulting fees as consequential damages for plaintiffs' alleged fraud with plaintiffs' claim for similar fees pursuant to the parties' letter of intent, and erred in finding that defendants had not proved damages, inasmuch as they were not obligated to do so in opposition to plaintiffs' showing.

Student note: Appellate Division also found that even if plaintiffs' motion was predicated on defendants' failure to show loss causation, because they had engaged their attorneys and consultants prior to entering into negotiations with plaintiffs, plaintiffs failed to show that defendants did not incur fees for professional services during their negotiations and while waiting for plaintiffs to execute their copy of the letter of intent.

Case: Abyssinian Dev. Corp. v. Bistricer, NY Slip Op 07374 (1st Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue: Liability for a fall down a winding staircase.

Defective tree wells.

Practice point: In order to hold the City liable for injuries resulting from defects in tree wells in City-owned sidewalks, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the City has received prior written notice of the defect, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201[c][2].

Student note: Here, in opposition to the City's showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, plaintiff submitted a Big Apple Map to prove that the City had notice of the allegedly defective condition. However, the map only provided notice that every tree well on the block lacked a fence or barrier, which was not sufficient to bring the particular condition to the City's attention.

Case: O’Donoghue v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07371 (1st Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue: Fees for services while waiting for executed letter of intent.

Motions to withdraw as counsel.

Practice point: Where defendant's insurer in a personal injury action issues a contested disclaimer of coverage in the midst of litigation, it is inappropriate to grant a motion to withdraw by the attorney the insurer has provided.

Student note: The decision to grant or deny permission for counsel to withdraw lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the court's decision should not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of an improvident exercise of discretion.

Case: McDonald v. Shore, NY Slip Op 07277 (2d Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Monday’s issue: Defective tree-wells.

Leading questions, and assuming facts not in evidence.

Practice point: The Appellate Division found that plaintiff's counsel's questions were not leading because they did not suggest the answer that counsel wished the expert to give. Instead, they were merely calculated to draw the witness' mind to the subject of inquiry.

Student note: The questions did not assume facts not in evidence because they were based either upon facts testified to by the defendant herself or upon opinions previously expressed by the expert. The jury was entitled to accept or reject both the underlying facts and the underlying opinions upon which an answer to these questions would have been based.

Case: Heines v. Minkowitz, NY Slip Op 07273 (2d Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue: Motions to withdraw as counsel.

Cashiers' checks.

Practice point: A cashier's check is the primary obligation of the issuing bank which, acting as both drawer and drawee, accepts the check upon its issuance.

Student note: Once a bank issues a cashier's check, it cannot thereafter stop payment, even upon a request from its customer, unless there is evidence of fraud, or evidence that the check was lost, stolen, or destroyed.

Case: Golden v. Citibank, N.A., NY Slip Op 07272 (2d Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue: Leading questions, and assuming facts not in evidence.

Fiduciary relationships, and a right to an accounting.

Practice point: A fiduciary relationship arises when one is under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relation. It is grounded in a higher level of trust than normally present in the marketplace between those involved in arm's-length business transactions., and so a conventional business relationship, without more, is insufficient. Rather, a plaintiff must make a showing of special circumstances that could have transformed the parties' business relationship to a fiduciary one, such as control by one party of the other for the good of the other.

Student note: The right to an accounting rests on the existence of a trust or fiduciary relationship regarding the subject matter of the controversy at issue.

Case: DiTolla v. Doral Dental IPA of N.Y., LLC, NY Slip Op 07266 (2d Dept. 2012).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue: Cashier’s checks.