Privileged attorney work product.

The absolute privilege under CPLR 3101(c) is limited to materials prepared by an attorney, while acting as an attorney, which contain the attorney's legal analysis, conclusions, theory, or strategy. Materials or documents that could have been prepared by a layperson do not fall within the attorney work product exception.

Bent-Anderson v. Singh, NY Slip Op 05676 (2d Dep't October 12, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Statutory amendments.

Where the alleged misconduct took place before the effective date of the amendments, the pre-amendment version of the statutes applies. 

Matter of Fodor v. Esposito, NY Slip Op 05787 (1st Dep't October 18, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A motion for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage.

The plaintiff establishes its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default. The plaintiff may establish a payment default by an admission made in response to a notice to admit, pursuant to CPLR 3212[b], 3123, by an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to CPLR 3212[b], or by other evidence in admissible form.

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the defendants' default in payment by submitting the affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer. The affiant averred that, based upon his review of unspecified business records, the defendants defaulted in making monthly payments in October 2008. However, the affiant did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the defendants' alleged default in payment. He also failed to identify which records he relied on to assert a default in payment, and the notice of default annexed to the affidavit was insufficient to establish the alleged default in payment. 

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Mannino, NY Slip Op 05675 (2d Dep't October 12, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law.

The claim is dismissed, as the alleged conduct amounts to no more than petty slights and trivial inconveniences, which are not actionable. The alleged stray remark that plaintiff was "old enough to retire" does not, without more, give rise to an inference of ageist bias, Plaintiff's bare allegations that younger officers who had committed misconduct did not receive unfavorable assignments are too general to support an inference of age discrimination.

Lent v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 05755 (1st Dep't October 13, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Where a motion to renew and reargue is not based on new facts that were not known to the movant at the time of the original motion, the appeal is deemed to be from a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable.

Matter of Ofek Rachel Ltd. v. Suky, NY Slip Op 05759 (1st Dep't October 13, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

The drastic remedy of dismissing a complaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with court-ordered discovery is warranted where the conduct is shown to be willful and contumacious. The willful and contumacious character of a party's conduct can be inferred from either (1) the repeated failure to respond to demands or comply with court-ordered discovery, without a reasonable excuse, or (2) the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time. Here, the willful and contumacious nature of the plaintiffs' conduct may properly be inferred from their repeated failures, without a reasonable excuse, to comply with the defendants' discovery demands, the court's order, and prior so-ordered stipulations. 

Ashfaq v. Ice Cream Depot Corp., NY Slip Op 05674 (2d Dep't October 12, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment before discovery.

The Appellate Division rejects plaintiff's argument that defendants' motion for summary judgment before discovery is premature. The record shows that the facts concerning plaintiff's dealings with defendants are within plaintiff's knowledge. Therefore, plaintiff does not establish that "facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated," as required for a motion brought under CPLR 3212[f].

 Alpine Custom Floors, Inc. v. Yurcisin, NY Slip Op 05655 (1st Dep't October 11, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Venue.

Pursuant to CPLR 504(1), the place of trial of all actions against a county shall be in that county, and, pursuant to CPLR 504(2), the place of trial of all actions against a town shall be in the county in which that town is situated. Venue may be placed in a county other than the county mandated by CPLR 504 upon a showing of special or compelling countervailing circumstances, but, here, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any such circumstances.

N.C. v. Ifezulumbria, NY Slip Op 05515 (2d Dep't October 5, 2022)

Here is the decision.

The doctrine of in loco parentis.

Because a school acts in place of the parent with respect to its minor students, a school district owes a special duty to the students themselves. Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision. However, schools are not insurers of the safety of their students, and the duty they owe to their students derives from their physical custody and control over the students. Therefore, the school's custodial duty ceases once the student has passed out of its orbit of authority and the parent can reassume control over the child's protection. However, the school's duty continues and is breached if the student is released without further supervision into a forseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating.

Boyle v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., NY Slip Op 05514 (2d Dep't October 5, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The order is appealable as of right under CPLR 5701(a)(3), as plaintiff properly made a motion on notice to vacate Supreme Court's sua sponte order under CPLR 2221(a). 

215 W. 84th St. Owner LLC v. Ozsu, NY Slip Op 05495 (1st Dep't October 4, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Staying an action.

Pursuant to CPLR 2201, Supreme Court may stay an action pending before it "upon such terms as may be just," and the court has broad discretion to grant a stay in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications, duplication of proof, and the waste of judicial resources. Here, the first-in-time holdover proceeding involves the same parties and both proceedings require the resolution of questions arising from defendant's occupancy of the apartment. A stay is appropriate. 

215 W. 84th St. Owner LLC v. Ozsu, NY Slip Op 05495 (1st Dep't October 4, 2022)

Here is the decision.