Summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.

The motion will be granted as to the defendant-resident who was acting under the supervision of the defendant-physician, and who did not trigger individual liability by exercising independent medical judgment or otherwise acting outside the realm of ordinary prudence.

Murphy v. Drosinos, NY Slip Op 00214 (1st Dep't January 9, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The Appellate Division may decline to consider an argument that is raised only in a reply brief.

Woodward v. Levine, NY Slip Op 00068 (1st Dep't January 7, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Workers' Compensation Law.

 The special employee doctrine cannot be used to deem the plaintiff an "employee" of defendant for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law.

White v. Metropolitan Opera Assn., Inc., NY Slip Op 00076 (1st Dep't January 7, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The appeal from the judgment brings up for review the order that denied defendant's motion to reargue and renew, which the court, in effect, granted by addressing its merits.

JW 70th St. LLC v. Simon, NY Slip Op 00090 (1st Dep't January, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Personal jurisdiction.

 Pursuant to CPLR 320(b), a defendant's appearance is equivalent to personal service of the summons, unless the defendant objects by motion or in the answer.  An attorney's appearance constitutes an appearance by the party for purposes of conferring jurisdiction.

Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Guzman, NY Slip Op 09313 (2d Dep't December 24, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A motion to compel discovery.

Where the plaintiff's job performance is not at issue, the demand for production of her entire employment file for three-years prior to the accident is overly broad and neither material nor necessary to her claim of a traumatic brain injury. The disclosure of records regarding her two knee replacements is appropriate, however, as the records are sufficiently related to her claim that, as a result of the accident, she had impaired instability and balance.

Wilson v. Simpson W. Realty, LLC, NY Slip Op 00053 (1st Dep't January 2, 2020)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 2221[e][2], [3].

The motion to renew is denied because it is not based on new facts, and the movant does not offer a reasonable justification for the failure to present those facts on the previous motion. The claimed ignorance of a confidentiality order entered in a related case raising identical issues does not constitute reasonable justification.

Arena v. Shaw, NY Slip Op 00050 (1st Dep't January 2, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Business Corporation Law § 306[b][1].

Service of process is complete when plaintiff serves the Secretary of State, irrespective of whether the process subsequently reaches the corporate defendant.

Fisher v. Lewis Constr. NYC Inc., NY Slip Op 00041 (1st Dep't January 2, 2020)

Here is the decision.

The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Defendant waived the defense by failing to raise it until after he had filed a notice of appearance, attended numerous court conferences, consented to a damages inquest, and cross-examined a witness at the inquest, following the grant of plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment.

Good Gateway, LLC v. Thakkar, NY Slip Op 09369 (1st Dep't December 26, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.21[e].

Pursuant to the rule, "[w]ithin 20 days after service of a note of issue and certificate of readiness, any party to the action or special proceeding may move to vacate the note of issue, upon affidavit showing in what respects the case is not ready for trial, and the court may vacate the note of issue if it appears that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect." A statement in a certificate of readiness to the effect that all pretrial discovery has been completed is a material fact, and where that statement is incorrect, the note of issue should be vacated. On a timely motion to vacate, the movant
 is required only to demonstrate why the case is not ready for trial, and is not required to establish that additional discovery is necessary. However, where the Supreme Court has directed the completion of discovery by a certain date or where the party seeking vacatur has failed to timely comply with court orders and discovery demands, denial of a motion to vacate is proper.

Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc., NY Slip Op 09250 (2d Dep't December 24, 2019)

Here is the decision.