Liability under the Labor Law.

Labor Law § 240(1) is construed as liberally as possible in order to accomplish its purpose of protecting workers. The statute imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to protect workers from the risks associated with the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure, and it puts the ultimate responsibility on them to provide scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other protective devices. The failure to do so resulting in injury to a worker engaged in the type of work covered by the statute establishes an owner or contractor's liability as a matter of law.  An owner is liable under the statute even where it exercises no control over work being performed by a contractor.

Mananghaya v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., NY Slip Op 06061 (1st Dep't September 13, 2018)

Here is the decision.

A derivative claim.

When a plaintiff's alleged money damages flow from harm to the corporate entity, the claim is derivative, not direct.

Pokoik v. Norsel Realties, NY Slip Op 06056 (1st Dep't September 14, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Landlord fraud and rent regulation.

Where the landlord has engaged in fraud in initially setting the rent or in removing an apartment from rent regulation, the court may examine the apartment's rental history, even beyond the statutory period set forth in CPLR 213-a.

Kreisler v. B-U Realty Corp., NY Slip Op -6-54 (1st Dep't September 13 2018)

Here is the decision.

A Yellowstone injunction.

The purpose of the injunction is to maintain the status quo so that, when confronted by the threat of termination, a commercial tenant may protect its investment in the leasehold. The injunction stays the tolling of the cure period, and, if there is an adverse determination on the merits, the tenant may cure the default. To secure the injunction, the tenant must demonstrate (1)  a commercial lease; (2) the landlord's notice of default, notice to cure, or threat to terminate; (3) that the lease has not been terminated and the cure period has not expired; and (4) the ability to cure by any means short of vacating the premises.  A plaintiff demonstrates that it has the ability to cure by establishing in its motion papers that it is willing to repair any defective condition found by the court, and by providing proof of its effort in addressing the default listed on the notice to cure.

146 Broadway Assoc., LLC v. Bridgeview at Broadway, LLC, NY Slip Op 05990 (2d Dep't September 12, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Service.

Pursuant to CPLR 317, a defendant who has been served with a summons other than by personal delivery may defend the action on the court's finding that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend, and has a potentially meritorious defense.  Service on a corporation through the secretary of state is not personal delivery. The mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint is not sufficient to establish lack of actual notice of the action.

Stevens v. Stepanski, NY Slip Op 05954 (2d Dep't August 29, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Limitations period in a foreclosure action.

Pursuant to CPLR 213(4), an action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations.  Once the mortgage debt is accelerated, even if it is payable in installments, the entire amount is due, and the statutory period begins to run on the entire debt.

Yadegar v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., NY Slip Op 05057 (2d Dep't August 29, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Administrative law judges.

The decisions of administrative law judges are not entitled to deference by courts.

Morse v. Fidessa Corp., NY Slip Op 05975 (1st Dep't September 6, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Proper service.

A process server's affidavit is prima facie evidence of proper service.

Margarella v. Ullian, NY Slip Op 05926 (2d Dep't August 29, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Strict liability for dog bites.

To recover on a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities, and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's propensities. Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of persons or the property of others. Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack; the dog's tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth; the manner in which the dog was restrained; and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk.

Lipinsky v. Yarusso, NY Slip Op 05925 (2d Dep't August 29, 2018)

Here is the decision.

General Obligations Law § 17-101.

The statute revives a time-barred claim when the debtor has signed a writing which validly acknowledges the debt. To constitute a valid acknowledgment, the writing must be signed; it must must recognize an existing debt; and it must contain nothing inconsistent with the debtor's intention to pay the debt.

Karpa Realty Group, LLC v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., NY Slip Op 05921 (2d Dep't August 29, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Claims of negligent hiring or supervision.

A necessary element of the cause of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury.  There is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee.

KM v. Fencers Club, Inc., NY Slip Op 05923 (2d Dep't August 29, 2018)

Here is the decision.