A petition to vacate an arbitration award.

In order to vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, the petitioner must show that the arbitration panel knew of a governing legal principle that was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable, and refused to apply it or ignored it altogether. A mistake of law does not constitute manifest disregard, and is not ground for vacatur.

Matter of McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., NY Slip Op 07498 (1st Dep't October 17, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3025(b).

A proposed amended complaint must clearly show the changes or additions between it and the previous complaint.

Cafe Lughnasa Inc. v. A&R Kalimian LLC, NY Slip Op 07496 (1st Dep't October 17, 2019)

Here is the decision.

22 NYCRR 202.27.

 A court may exercise its discretion to dismiss an action where the plaintiff fails to appear at any scheduled call of a calendar or at any conference.

Bank of N.Y. v. Harper, NY Slip Op 07378 (2d Dep't October 16, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3212[f].

Where plaintiffs meet their burden of demonstrating that facts essential to justify opposition to a summary judgment motion may lie within defendants' exclusive knowledge or control, the motion will be denied as premature, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Lyons v. New York City Economic Dev. Corp., NY Slip Op 07483 (1st Dep't October 17, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Appellate Practice.

When a motion to renew an order will remove the grievance on which the appeal is based, the appeal should be abated.

Saud v. New York & Presbyt. Hosp., NY Slip Op 07375 (1st Dep't October 15, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Medical malpractice.

Supervised medical personnel who are not exercising their independent medical judgment are not liable for malpractice. However, they may be liable for failing to intervene if the supervising doctor's directions greatly deviate from normal medical practice.

Macancela v. Wykoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 07244 (2d Dep't October 9, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 2221.

Plaintiffs' motion, while denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, is not based on new facts unavailable at the time of the original motion, and, therefore, actually is a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable.

Smith v. Pereira, NY Slip Op 07357 (1st Dep't October 10, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3211(a)(4).

The statute permits the dismissal of a cause of action where "there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States; the court need not dismiss upon this ground but may make such order as justice requires." The motion court may providently exercise its discretion by dismissing the action without prejudice.

Seagate Mini Mall, Inc. v. Khlebopros, NY Slip Op 07306 (2d Dep't October 9, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Court holiday.

Statute of limitations.

In determining which limitations period is applicable to a given cause of action, the court must look to the substance of the allegations rather than to the parties' characterization of those allegations.

Potter v. Zucker Hillside Hosp., NY Slip Op 07304 (2d Dep't October 9, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3211 and 3212.

The motion court treated defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to 3211(a)(2) and (7), as a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to 3211[c]), since both sides made it unequivocally clear that they were laying bare their proof and deliberately charting a summary judgment course.  The motion was untimely, since it was made after the 120-day deadline imposed by 3212(a) and was unaccompanied by an explanation for the lateness.

Hernandez v. 2075-2081 Wallace Ave. Owners Corp., NY Slip Op 07328 (1st Dep't October 10, 2019)

Here is the decision.