Practice point: Crossing a double yellow line into the opposing traffic lane, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126(a), constitutes negligence as a matter of law, unless justified by an emergency situation not of the driver's own making.
Student note: A driver is not required to anticipate that a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic.
Case: Browne v. Logan Bus Co., Inc., NY Slip Op 09111 (2d Dep't December 27, 2017)
Here is the decision.
January 4, 2018
January 3, 2018
Denial of a motion to renew.
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion since it was
not based on new facts that would change the prior determination, as required by CPLR
2221[e]. The purportedly new facts concerning the failure to timely file a satisfaction of judgment pursuant to a prior stipulation were wholly unrelated to the court's prior
determination that the stipulation was not the product of duress. In addition, the movant, under the guise of renewal, improperly advances a new legal theory - breach of the stipulation - rather than the basis of the original motion, which was the stipulation's invalidity.
Case: Atlas v. Smily, NY Slip Op 09248 (1st Dep't December 28. 2017)
Here is the decision.
Case: Atlas v. Smily, NY Slip Op 09248 (1st Dep't December 28. 2017)
Here is the decision.
January 2, 2018
Waiver of defenses.
Practice point: Because defendant failed to timely raise defenses based on service of
process and standing in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss,
those defenses are waived, pursuant to CPLR 3211[e].
Student note: In any event, the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, which defendant failed to rebut with anything more than conclusory denials of receipt.
Case: U.S. Bank N.A. v. Thomas, NY Slip Op 09241 (1st Dep't December 28, 2017)
Here is the decision.
Student note: In any event, the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, which defendant failed to rebut with anything more than conclusory denials of receipt.
Case: U.S. Bank N.A. v. Thomas, NY Slip Op 09241 (1st Dep't December 28, 2017)
Here is the decision.
January 1, 2018
December 29, 2017
A premises liability action.
A property owner has a duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances. In a premises liability case, a defendant property
owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves
for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie
showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had
actual or constructive notice of its existence.
Case: Arevalo v. Associated Supermarkets, Inc., NY Slip Op 09109
Here is the decision.
Case: Arevalo v. Associated Supermarkets, Inc., NY Slip Op 09109
Here is the decision.
December 28, 2017
The Court of Claims' jurisdiction.
The Court of Claims has limited jurisdiction to hear actions against the
State itself, or actions naming State agencies or officials as
defendants, but where the State is the real party in interest, as well as claims against a few other State-related entities as provided by statute.
Case: Bush v. Stevenson Commons Assoc., LLP, NY Slip Op 08806 (2d Dep't December 20, 2017)
Here is the decision.
Case: Bush v. Stevenson Commons Assoc., LLP, NY Slip Op 08806 (2d Dep't December 20, 2017)
Here is the decision.
December 27, 2017
Specific performance on a real estate contract, or return of the down payment.
Practice point: A purchaser seeking specific performance of a real estate contract must
demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform on
the contract, regardless of any anticipatory breach by the selle. An anticipatory breach of the contract excuses the purchaser from
tendering performance, but does not excuse the purchaser from the
requirement of being ready, willing, and able to perform.
In order to retain the down payment, the seller must have been ready, willing, and able to perform on the law day. There are exceptions to this rule, such as where the purchaser seeks to cancel the contract without giving the seller an opportunity to cure any defects. In order to get a return of the down payment, the purchaser is not required to tender performance and attend a closing if the seller is unable to perform on the law day.
Case: 33 Park Ave. Realty, LLC v. Park Ave. Bldg. & Roofing Supplies, LLC, NY Slip Op 08802 (2d Dep't December 20, 2017)
Here is the decision.
In order to retain the down payment, the seller must have been ready, willing, and able to perform on the law day. There are exceptions to this rule, such as where the purchaser seeks to cancel the contract without giving the seller an opportunity to cure any defects. In order to get a return of the down payment, the purchaser is not required to tender performance and attend a closing if the seller is unable to perform on the law day.
Case: 33 Park Ave. Realty, LLC v. Park Ave. Bldg. & Roofing Supplies, LLC, NY Slip Op 08802 (2d Dep't December 20, 2017)
Here is the decision.
December 26, 2017
A claim for damages based on lack of informed consent.
Practice point: To establish a cause of action to recover damages based on lack of
informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the treatment provider failed to inform the plaintiff of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and alternatives thereto; 2)
that a reasonably prudent plaintiff in the same position would not have
undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed; and (3)
that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Where the plaintiffs and the defendant present divergent expert testimony, it is up to the jury to determine the experts' credibility.
Case: Alessi v. Mucciolo, NY Slip Op 08804 (2d Dep't December 20, 2017)
Here is the decision.
Case: Alessi v. Mucciolo, NY Slip Op 08804 (2d Dep't December 20, 2017)
Here is the decision.
December 25, 2017
December 22, 2017
Extensions of time.
Practice point: Pursuant to CPLR 3012(d), a trial court has the discretionary power to extend
the time to plead, or to compel acceptance of an untimely pleading on terms that may be just, if there is a showing of a
reasonable excuse for the delay. In reviewing a discretionary
determination, the question is whether the court providently
exercised its discretion.
Case: Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca, NY Slip Op 08716 (1st Dep't December 14, 2017)
Here is the decision.
Case: Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca, NY Slip Op 08716 (1st Dep't December 14, 2017)
Here is the decision.
December 21, 2017
Leave to amend.
Practice point: A motion for leave to amend a pleading may be made at any time, and leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just, pursuant to the express terms of CPLR 3025[b]. Absent prejudice or surprise resulting from a delay in making the motion, leave will be granted unless the proposed amendment is patently without merit or palpably improper. The decision to grant or deny the motion is let to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not lightly be put aside.
Case: Cullen v. Torsiello, NY Slip Op 08654 (2d Dep't December 13, 2017)
Here is the decision.
Case: Cullen v. Torsiello, NY Slip Op 08654 (2d Dep't December 13, 2017)
Here is the decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)