Dram shop statutes.

Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-101, a party who unlawfully sells alcohol to another person is liable for injuries caused by reason of that person's intoxication. Pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1), it is unlawful to furnish an alcoholic beverage to any "person, actually or apparently, under the age of twenty-one years." While § 11-100 does not explicitly require knowledge or a reasonable belief of the purchaser's being underage, it is a requirement for liability to attach.

Ferber v. Olde Erie Brew Pub & Grill, LLC, NY Slip Op 03827 (2d Dep't May 30, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Judiciary Law § 475.

 On a motion pursuant to § 475, the attorney seeks a lien on the client's cause of action. The lien does not provide for an immediately enforceable judgment against all the client's assets, but, instead, is a security interest against a judgment or settlement in the client's favor.  In order to obtain a money judgment, the attorney must commence a plenary action.

Bernard v. De Rham, NY Slip Op 03891 (1st Dep't May 31, 2018)

Here is the decision.

74 years.

The sufficiency of a Notice of Claim.

The test of the sufficiency of the notice is merely whether it includes information sufficient to enable the city to investigate.  In making this determination, the Court may look at, among other things, the evidence adduced at the section 50-h hearing.

Here, according to the notice and evidence adduced at the 50-h hearing, plaintiff states that while she was on an escalator inside the train station, she slipped and fell on a slippery condition. Plaintiff alleges that the escalator was within the control of the agency and that it failed to maintain the escalator. Accordingly, the agency was on notice of plaintiff's theory of liability, namely, that it has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain the escalator in a safe condition.

Ingrao v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 03889 (1st Dep't May 31, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Dissolution of an LLC.

 An application for dissolution of an LLC must be made by or for a member of the LLC, pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 702.

62 Park Place Realty, LLC v. Levin, NY Slip Op 03823 (2d Dep't May 30, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Leave to amend.

The Appellate Division affirmed denial of the motion for leave to amend, as the proposed amended complaint is based on the same alleged wrongs as the original pleading. In the proposed amendment, plaintiff merely recasts derivative claims as direct ones.

MFB Realty LLC v. Eichner, NY Slip Op 03800 (1st Dep't May 29, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Effective service.

Where the notice of service on the Secretary of State, and a copy of the summons and complaint mailed to the defendant's out-of-state address, were returned as undeliverable, service was never effectuated. However, where, as here, service is not timely made, the court may, for good cause or in the interest of justice, extend the time, pursuant to CPLR 306-b. In applying the interest of justice standard, the court may consider factors such as the plaintiff's diligence, or lack thereof; expiration of the Statute of Limitations; the meritorious nature of the claim; the length of the delay in service; the promptness of the plaintiff's request for the extension of time; and prejudice to the defendant. No one factor is determinative.

Nunez-Ariza v. Nell, NY Slip Op 03735 (1st Dep't May 24, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Wages under the Labor Law.

So-called usage payments, which are third-party payments to models for the use of images taken at photo shoots, are not wages within the meaning of § 190[1].

Shanklin v. Wilhelmina Models, Inc., NY Slip Op 03732 (1st Dep't May 24, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Motions to leave and/or to reargue.

A motion denominated as one for leave to renew and/or to reargue that is not based on new facts, pursuant to CPLR 2221(d)(2), is a motion for leave to reargue. The denial of the motion is not appealable.

Capital One Bank v. Phillips, NY Slip Op 03656 (2d Dep't May 23, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Fraud in the inducement.

Plaintiffs' cause of action alleging fraud in the inducement was dismissed, as it is founded on non-actionable promises of future conduct or events, and not present fact, and non-actionable opinion of defendant as to his resources and capability of undertaking the work sought by plaintiffs.

Yablon v. Stern, NY Slip Op 03650 (1st Dep't May 22, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Memorial Day.