A municipality's liability.

A party seeking to impose liability on a municipality acting in a governmental capacity must establish the existence of a special duty to plaintiff, which is more than the duty owed to the public generally.

Musano v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 02368 (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Damages for emotional distress.

A plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress arising out of the intentional destruction of property.

Barrish v. Chiesa, NY Slip Op 02375 (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Employment discrimination claims.

There is a lenient notice pleading standard for employment discrimination cases. Here, the complaint states a cause of action for retaliation, as it alleges that plaintiff filed a discrimination complaint in December 2010; that defendant was notified of the complaint in November 2011; and that six months later plaintiff was charged with misconduct that allegedly had occurred more than a year earlier. However, the complaint fails to state causes of action for discrimination and hostile work environment, as it does not allege that defendants' actions occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. It does not allege facts that would establish that similarly situated persons who were male or who were not black were treated more favorably than plaintiff was  treated. Instead, the complaint merely asserts the legal conclusion that defendants' adverse employment actions and plaintiff's termination were due to race and gender. The hostile work environment cause of action fails for the additional reason that the handful of potentially insensitive comments made by her superior over the course of a few years do not rise to a level that is actionable under either the State or the City Human Rights Law.

Thomas v. Mintz,  NY Slip Op 02367 (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Legal malpractice.

Plaintiffs allege that they sustained damages when they relied on defendants' negligent advice that they could disclaim coverage of their insured in an underlying malpractice action. In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants properly rely on documentary evidence, including the challenged disclaimer letter and the relevant policy, since their authenticity is undisputed and their contents are essentially undeniable. The disclaimer letter sets forth an analysis of plaintiffs' right to refuse coverage on two independent bases. Dismissal is required because plaintiffs fail to plead with specificity or to argue that one of the two bases for defendants' advice was incorrect.

Lloyd's Syndicate 2987 v. Furman Kornfeld & Brennan, LLP,  (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Denial of leave to renew.

The article 78 court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant leave to renew, as petitioner raised no new facts that would have changed the outcome of the prior order and judgment, and did not provide a reasonable excuse for failing to present those facts with the petition, pursuant to  CPLR 2221[e].

Yu Chan Li v. New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., NY Slip Op 02281 (1st Dep't April 16, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment in a construction-site fall.

 In the absence of evidence as to the last time the stairway was cleaned or inspected before the accident, defendants failed to demonstrate that they lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition that allegedly caused plaintiff's injury.

Ohadi v. Magnetic Constr. Group Corp., NY Slip Op 02278 (1st Dep't April 16, 2020)

Here is the decision.

A motion to change venue.

A plaintiffs' subsequent move to another conunty does not invalidate the original designation based on plaintiffs' residence at the time of the commencement of the action, pursuant to CPLR 503(a).

Green v. Steinitz, NY Slip Op 02287 (April 16, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Arbitration provisions.

The provision is binding on a non-signatory only on equitable estoppel/direct benefit grounds. The question is for the court to decide, not the arbitrator.

Matter of KPMG, LLP v. Kirschner, NY Slip Op 02286 (1st Dep't April 16, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Motion practice.

The court will not consider the merits of a new theory of recovery that is not pleaded in the complaint and that is raised for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

Price v. TuneCore, Inc., NY Slip Op 02284 (1st Dep't April 16, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The denial of a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable.

Matter of Yu Chan Li v. New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., NY Slip Op 02281 (1st Dep't April 16, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Workers' Compensation Law.

An employee's rights to Workers' Compensation benefits is the employee's exclusive remedy against his employer or coemployee for injuries sustained during his employment, pursuant to §§ 11, 29[6]. However, the statute does not prevent the employee from recovering for intentional torts, such as an assault
.
Donnelly v. Christian, NY Slip Op 02279 (1st Dep't April 16, 2020)

Here is the decision.