The doctrine of res judicata.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if they are based upon different theories or seek a different remedy. Dismissal of a federal action without prejudice, including a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, has no preclusive effect on a subsequent state action. However, a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice has the same preclusive effect as a judgment on the merits. A voluntary discontinuance with prejudice is narrowly interpreted when the interests of justice or the particular equities involved warrant such an interpretation.

Busher v. Barry, NY Slip Op 00292 (2d Dep't January 24, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept as true the facts as alleged in the pleading, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.  Where evidentiary material is considered and the motion has not been converted to one for summary judgment, the criterion is whether the non-moving party has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one.

Burton v. Porcelain, NY Slip Op 00291 (2d Dep't January 24, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Pre-action discovery.

Before an action is commenced, disclosure to aid in bringing the action, to preserve information, or to aid in arbitration may be obtained, but only by court order, pursuant to CPLR 3102[c]. In order to obtain pre-action disclosure, the petitioner must show that it has sufficient factual basis to plead a meritorious cause of action, and that the information sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong. Pre-action disclosure is not allowed for the purpose of determing whether there are facts that can support a cause of action.

Matter of Khorassani v. Financial Indus. Regulatory Auth., NY Slip Op 00354 (1st Dep't January 25, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Landowners' duty of care.

A landowner's duty to take minimal security precautions does not extend to exterior public areas, including walkways and vestibules.

Abdulfattaah v. Riverbay Corp., NY Slip Op 00258 (1st Dep't January 23, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions.

A plaintiff may use its reply affidavit to clarify an issue that was raised for the first time in opposition to its motion, but it may not use the reply to correct a defect in its prima facie case.

5AIF Sycamore 2, LLC v 201 EB Dev. III, NY Slip Op 00257 (1st Dep't January 23, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Rear-end collisions.

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident. Not every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the trailing driver. The driver in front also has the duty not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision.

Gomez v. Pechman, NY Slip Op 00182 (2d Dep't January 17, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions.

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that, pursuant to CPLR 3212 [f], the motion should be denied as premature because of facts within defendants' exclusive knowledge and control. The motion is granted.

Tour Cent. Park Inc. v. Thor 38 Park Row LLC, NY Slip Op 00252 (1st Dep't January 18, 2024)

Here is the decision.

The limitations period for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion.

The six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8) applies to causes of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, since allegations of fraud are essential to, and not merely incidental to, the cause of action.

Gam v. Dvir, NY Slip Op 00181 (2d Dep't January 17, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Motions to intervene.

Pursuant to CPLR 1012(a)(3), "[u]pon timely motion, any person shall be permitted to intervene in any action . . . when the action involves the disposition or distribution of, or the title or a claim for damages for injury to, property and the person may be affected adversely by the judgment."  In considering the timeliness of the motion, courts do not engage in mere mechanical measurements of time, but consider whether the delay in seeking intervention would cause a delay in resolution of the action or otherwise prejudice a party.

Countrywide Bank, FSB v. Snipes, NY Slip Op 00179 (2d Dep't January 17, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

Further discovery is necessary in order to resolve factual questions, most notably the precise location at which the accident occurred and the party responsible for repair and maintenance. Therefore, the CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss is denied as premature.

Wright v, City of New York, NY Slip Op 00253 (1st Dep't January 18, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Legal malpractice.

In order to state a valid cause of action alleging legal malpractice, the plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to show that an attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession.  In order to establish causation, the plaintiff must show that, but for the attorney's negligence, he would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages. A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action has the burden of establishing prima facie that he did not fail to exercise such skill and knowledge, or that the allege departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff to sustain damages.

Amid v. Del Col, NY Slip Op 00178 (2d Dep't January 17, 2024)

Here is the decision.