CPLR 327(a).

Pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court may dismiss an action when, although it has jurisdiction over the claim, the court determines that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum. The burden is on the defendant to show that considerations relevant to private or public interest militate against accepting or retaining the litigation. The court will consider factors such as the residency of the parties; potential inconvenience to proposed witnesses, especially nonparty witnesses;, the availability of an alternative forum; the situs of the actionable events; the location of the evidence; and the burden that retaining the case would have on New York courts.

Albright v. Combe Inc., NY Slip Op 00837 (2d Dep't February 5, 2020)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3101[c].

An attorney's work product is absolutely privileged, and is not obtainable. The privilege extends only to documents prepared by counsel acting as such, and to materials uniquely the product of a lawyer's learning and professional skills, such as those reflecting the attorney's legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory, or strategy.

Venture v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., NY Slip Op 00834 (1st Dep't February 4, 2020)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 2104.

While the record reflects that the parties agreed to various settlement terms, the oral agreement has no binding effect because the agreement and its terms were not sufficiently documented, recorded, or memorialized.

Greenway Mews Realty, L.L.C. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., NY Slip Op 00824 (1st Dep't February 4, 2020)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 203[f].

Under the relation back doctrine, the addition of a new defendant requires the following: (1) both claims arise out of same conduct, transaction, or event; (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant, and, by reason of that relationship, can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for an excusable mistake by plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him as well.

Stanger v. Shoprite of Monroe, NY, NY Slip 00820 (1st Dep't February 4, 2020)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3215.

On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, the movant must submit evidence of service of the summons and complaint, evidence of the facts constituting the claim, and evidence of the defaulting party's failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Chishty, NY Slip Op 00641 (2d Dep't January 29, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41.

The complaint fails to state a cause of action because plaintiff's own allegations establish that his arrest and detention for a mental health evaluation were privileged.

Abascal-Montalvo v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 00676 (1st Dep't January 30, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Claims of retaliation and discrimination.

Before any disciplinary actions were taken, the plaintiff had lodged formal complaints that her superiors made discriminatory and disparaging comments about her race and gender. The allegedly pervasive racist and sexist comments and conduct preclude summary dismissal of the claims as insubstantial.

Nelson v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 00671 (1st Dep't January 30, 2020)

Here is the decision.

A failed motion to vacate a default.

Defendant's claim that he was unfamiliar with the legal system and did not understand that he needed an attorney to represent him is not a reasonable excuse for failing to timely appear and oppose plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Absent a reasonable excuse for the default, the court need not consider whether there is a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

Besler v. Uzieri, NY Slip Op 00687 (1st Dep't January 30, 2020)

Here is the decision.

22 NYCRR 9.1.

The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendants' summary judgment motion on the ground that their affirmation in support far exceeded the court's page limitation rules.

Hornsby v. Cathedral Parkway Apts. Corp., NY Slip Op 00526 (1st Dep't January 28, 2020)

Here is the decision.

A summary judgment motion.

The absence of an affidavit from a person having knowledge of the facts does not require denial of the motion, as it is supported by an attorney's affirmation to introduce undisputed documentary evidence, including the parties' contract and the addendum thereto.

Astoria Generating Co., LP v. Riley Power, Inc., NY Slip Op 00560 (2d Dep't January 29, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

An  interim decision is not an appealable paper, which deprives the Appellate Division of jurisdiction and requires dismissal of the appeal, albeit without prejudice.  There are instances where the Appellate Division  has deemed a paper denominated as a "decision" to be appealable because it contained all the hallmarks of an order. Here, however, the Supreme Court itself noted that it issued the interim decision in the absence of a motion for relief, and the decision did not result in the issue of any order.

Spectrum News NY1 v. New York City Police Dept., NY Slip Op 00521 (1st Dep't January 28, 2020)

Here is the decision.