Open-court stipulations.

Practice point:  As with any contract, the stipulation will be enforced so long as it is sufficiently definite in its material terms so as to enable a court to determine exactly what the parties have agreed to.

Student note:  Open-court stipulations are judicially favored, and will not be set aside absent fraud, overreaching, mistake, duress, or unconscionability.

 Case:  Clement v. Millbrook Cent. Sch. Dist., NY Slip Op 05806 (2d Dep't July 26, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A co-owner's mortgage of a property.

An account stated.

Practice point:  An essential element of an account stated is that the parties came to an agreement with respect to the amount due.

 Student note:  An account stated is an agreement, express or implied, between the parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the correctness of account items and a specific balance due on them which is independent of the original obligation.

Case:  Caring Professionals, Inc. v. Landa, NY Slip Op 05803 (2d Dep't July 26 2017)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Open-court stipulations.

A court's vacating a note of issue.

Practice point:  On its own motion, a court may, at any time, vacate a note of issue if it appears that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect or that the certificate of readiness fails to comply with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.21.

Case:  Bundhoo v. Wendy's, NY Slip Op 05802 (2d Dep't July 26, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  An account stated.

A landowner's liability for injuries during storms.

Practice point:  The landowner is not liable for injuries sustained as the result of slippery conditions during the storm, or for a reasonable time thereafter.  However, if the landowner engages in snow removal, it must act with reasonable care to avoid creating a hazardous condition or making the bad situation worse.

Case:  Balan v. Rooney, NY Slip Op 05801 (2d Dep't July 26, 2017)  

Here is the decision. 

Tomorrow's issue:  A court's vacating a note of issue.

A cause of action sounding in negligence.

The elements of the cause of action are (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's breach of that duty; and (3) injury proximately resulting from the defendant's breach.

Practice point:  The existence and scope of a duty of care is a question of law for the courts to decide.

Case:  Abbott v. Johnson, NY Slip Op 05800 (2d Dep't July 26, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  A landowner's liability for injuries during storms.

The public's right to access to the courts.

Practice point:  While public policy mandates free access to the courts, a party may forfeit that right if she or he abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will.

Case:  Pavic v. Djokic, NY Slip Op 05735 (2d Dep't July 19, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A cause of action sounding in negligence.

The continuing wrong doctrine.

Practice point:  Where there is a series of continuing wrongs, the doctrine tolls the limitation period until the date of the commission of the last wrongful act.

Case:  Palmeri v. Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, NY Slip Op 05794 (1st Dep't July 25, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The public's right to access to the courts.

Contract interpretation.

Practice point:  The objective in interpreting a contract is to determine the parties' intent from the language they used and to fulfill their reasonable expectations.  The court's role is to enforce the parties' agreement made by the parties, not to add, excise or distort the meaning of the terms they chose to include, thereby creating a new contract under the guise of construction. 

Student note:  Although words are generally afforded their ordinary meaning, technical words are to be given their generally accepted technical meaning, and interpreted as usually understood by the persons in the profession or business to which they relate.

Case:  Landmark Ventures, Inc. v. H5 Tech., Inc., NY Slip Op 05713 (2d Dep't July 19, 2017)

Here is the decision. 

Tomorrow's issue:  The continuing wrong doctrine.

Routine maintenance and a Labor Law claim.

Practice point:  Routine maintenance is outside the scope of Labor Law § 240(1). Work constitutes routine maintenance when it involves replacing components that, in the course of normal wear and tear, require replacement.

Student note: To prevail on a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the injury occurred while erecting, demolishing, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing a building or structure.

Case:  Ferrigno v. Jaghab, Jaghab & Jaghab, P.C., NY Slip Op 05709 (2d Dep't July 19, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Contract interpretation.

The emergency doctrine.

Under the doctrine, when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor will not be negligent if, in context, the actor's actions are reasonable and prudent.

Practice point:  A driver traveling on a road controlled by a stop sign who fails to yield the right of way is in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a), and is negligent as a matter of law.

Student note:  If the offending vehicle's driver blames brake failure, the driver must show that the brake problem was unanticipated.

Case:  D'Augustino v. Bryan Auto Parts, Inc., NY Slip Op 05708 (2d Dep't July 19, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  Routine maintenance and a Labor Law claim.

A religious corporation's sale of real property.

Practice point:  Religious Corporations Law § 12(1) provides that in order to sell any of its real property, a religious corporation must apply for, and obtain, leave of court, pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511.

Student note:  The purpose of this requirement is to protect the members of the religious corporation, the real parties in interest, from loss through unwise bargains and from misuse of the property.

Case:  Heights v. Schwarz, NY Slip Op 05707 (2d Dep't July 19, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The emergency doctrine.