Failure to state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement and fraud.

Practice point:  A complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement and fraud to the extent that it relies on representations that are non-actionable statements of either intent or belief.

Case:  GSO Coastline Credit Partners LP v. Global A&T Electronics Ltd., NY Slip Op 06143 (1st Dep't September 27, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A dismissed retaliation claim.

An action on an account stated.

Practice point:  An account stated is an agreement between parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the correctness of the account items and the balance owing. The agreement is implied where a defendant retains bills without objection within a reasonable period of time, or makes partial payment on the account.

Case:  Clean Earth of N. Jersey, Inc. v. Northcoast Maintenance Corp., NY Slip 06056 (2d Dep't September 21, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Failure to state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement and fraud.

Claims sounding in punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Practice point:  Whilea plaintiff may pray for relief in the form of punitive damages, the claim may not be pled as a separate cause of action. Similarly, while a plaintiff, if successful, may be entitled to attorneys' fees under the City's Human Rights Law, a claim for attorneys' fees may not be maintained as a separate cause of action.

Case:  La Porta v. Alacra, Inc., NY Slip Op 06113 (1st Dep't September 22, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: An action on an account stated.

Judicial estoppel in a matrimonial action.

Practice point:  Sometimes called the doctrine of inconsistent positions, judidical estoppel precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a favorable judgment from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because that party's interests have changed.

The doctrine is applicable in matrimonial actions, but in this case the Appellate Division held that the defendant was not judicially estopped from seeking an award of maintenance, as the parties were still married at the time the bankruptcy petitions were filed, and the defendant was not required to list any possible future rights to maintenance payments in the bankruptcy petitions, which were filed years before the judgment of divorce was issued.

Case:  Canzona v. Canzona, NY Slip Op 06055 (2d Dep't September 21, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Claims sounding in punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Labor Law liability for a fall from a scaffold or ladder.

Practice point:  Liability under § 240(1) depends upon whether the injury resulted from the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a device within the purview of the statute. So, there can be no liability under § 240(1) when there is no violation and the worker's actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Case:  Albino v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp., NY Slip Op 05953 (1st Dep't September 8, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  Judicial estoppel in a matrimonial action.

A defendant files for summary judgment before plaintiff commences discovery.

Practice point:  Plaintiff's failure to commence discovery during the ten months between defendant's answer and defendant's motion to dismiss, without more, does not warrant granting the motion, pursuant to CPLR 3212(f), where the existing record does not negate plaintiff's theory of liability.

Case:  Gomez v. Kozot Realty Corp., NY Slip Op 06046 (1st Dep't September 15, 2016)

Tomorrow's issue: Labor Law liability for a fall from a scaffold or ladder.

Denial of defendant's summary judgment motion.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division reversed, and denied the motion to dismiss.  In support of their motion, defendants submitted, among other things, transcripts of the deposition testimony of both  plaintiff and defendant-driver. In those transcripts, the parties gave differing accounts of how the accident occurred, and there were issues of fact and credibility that could not be resolved on the motion. Given these issues, defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Student note:  Since defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion is denied without consideration of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition papers.

Case:  Chimbo v. Bolivar, NY Slip Op 05969 (2d Dep't September 14, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A defendant files for summary judgment before plaintiff commences discovery.

A claim of retaliation under the State and City Human Rights Laws.

Practice Point:  The Appellate Division found that plaintiff stated the cause of action where he alleges that he was passed over for promotion because of his accent. The Appellate Division noted that plaintiff's accent is inextricably bound to his national origin. In addition, plaintiff alleges that defendants subjected him to excessive scrutiny as a result of his persistent applications for promotion, and that this led directly to his suspension and termination.

Case:  St. Jean Jeudy v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06045 (1st Dep't September 15, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Denial of defendant's summary judgment motion.

Liability for negligent renovation of a party wall.

Practice point:  A property owner may be liable where, during renovation, the party wall is altered to the detriment of the adjoining property owner.  Where it is alleged that the damage was to the structural aspect of the wall, the property owner could be liable for weakening the wall, regardless of any care in performing the work. In addition, the property owner causing the alterations may be liable for trespass where the wall is penetrated.

Case:  Ehrenberg v. Regier, NY Slip Op 05938 (1st Dep't September 1, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A claim of retaliation under the State and City Human Rights Laws.

The doctrine of laches.

Practice point:  Laches is an equitable doctrine which bars the enforcement of a right where there has been an unreasonable and inexcusable delay that results in prejudice to a party.  Prejudice may be demonstrated by a showing of injury, change of position, loss of evidence, or some other disadvantage resulting from the delay.

Case:  Diecidue v. Russo, NY Slip Op 05907 (2d Dep't August 31, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  Liability for negligent renovation of a party wall.

A late notice of claim is deemed timely served.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division determined that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petition and deeming the late notice of claim to be timely served, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]. The petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a notice of claim, namely, her physical incapacity and her attorney's investigation into the claim.  In addition, the petitioner adequately demonstrated that the defendant would not be substantially prejudiced by the delay.

Case:  Matter of Pazienza v. Westchester County Health Care Corp., NY Slip Op 05863 (2d Dep't August 24, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The doctrine of laches.