Assumed duty of care.

Is a hotel subject to liability for failing to prevent a guest's suicide under a theory of assumed duty, where the hotel does not have custody or control of that guest but delays calling 911 after a family member's request?  No.  In moving to dismiss, the defendants met their prima facie burden, establishing that they neither assumed a duty of care nor proximately caused injury to the decedent. The plaintiffs' experts' speculative and conclusory assertions that the hotel's delay in calling 911 caused decedent's suicide is insufficient to raise an issue of fact.

Beadell v. Eros Mgt., NY Slip Op 02496 (1st Dep't May 7, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

An interpretation that renders the contract illusory and, as a result, unenforceable is disfavored. The enforcement of the bargain is preferred, particularly where, in a writing, the parties have expressed their intent to be contractually bound.

Absent fraud or unconscionability, the adequacy of consideration is not a proper subject for judicial scrutiny.

RDF Agent, LLC v. Electric Red Ventures, LLC, NY Slip Op 02384 (1st Dep't May 2, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Exculpatory agreements.

A valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release. Where the language of the exculpatory agreement expresses in unequivocal terms the parties' intention to relieve a defendant of liability for its own negligence, the agreement will be enforced.

Soloviev v. Ross Sch., NY Slip Op 02341 (2d Dep't May 1, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment.

Pursuant to CPLR 3212[f], a summary judgment motion may be denied as premature on a showing that essential facts in opposition to the motion are exclusively within the movant's knowledge and control, and that additional discovery might lead to relevant evidence.

Haskins v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., NY Slip Op 02368 (1st Dep't May 2, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Judgment as a matter of law.

A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party.

Shouldis v. Strange, NY Slip Op 02340 (2d Dep't May 1, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. Whether the plaintiff can ultimately establish the allegations is not part of the calculus.

Rubin v. Poly Prep Country Day Sch., NY Slip Op 02339 (2d Dep't May 1, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a default.

Defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment is denied because the moving papers failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action, pursuant to CPLR 5015[a]. Defendant's contention that her counsel neglected the matter does not constitute a reasonable excuse.  Defendant, who appeared pro se, did not submit any documentation that she had actually retained counsel, and no notice of appearance was ever filed. In any event, bare allegations of incompetence by counsel cannot serve as the basis to set aside a default.

Tao Liu v. Sobin Chang, NY Slip Op 02370 (1st Dep't May 2, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Service by email.

In a divorce action, Domestic Relations Law § 232 permits substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308 by court order upon a showing that personal delivery of the summons and complaint upon the defendant could not be effected despite efforts made with due diligence

Here, the plaintiff's affidavit of service shows that the defendant was served via email, rather than by personal delivery. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant previously consented to such service. Thus, absent a court order authorizing service by email, the service was ineffective.

Rae v. Marciano, NY Slip Op 02337 (2d Dep't May 1, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Unjust enrichment.

The proposed counterclaim for unjust enrichment is barred because the parties had entered into an agreement that governed the settlement. Although a party generally does not have to elect its remedy as between unjust enrichment or breach of contract at the pleadings stage, all the rights and obligations in dispute between the parties arise from the parties' purchase and sale agreement and the settlement agreements, rendering a counterclaim for unjust enrichment inapposite to the facts.

Walsam 316 v. 316 Bowery Realty Corp. , NY Slip Op 02288 (1st Dep't April 30, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Respondeat superior.

The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by a servant within the scope of the servant's employment. Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts. The critical inquiry in determining whether there is an employment relationship depends on the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results. Factors relevant to assessing control include whether the worker (1) worked at his own convenience; (2) was free to engage in other employment; (3) received fringe benefits; (4) was on the employer's payroll; and (5) was on a fixed schedule. The fact that there is a contract designating a person as an independent contractor is to be considered, but it is not dispositive. Whether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury.

Brielmeier v. Leal, NY Slip Op 02163 (2d Dep't April 24, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Generally, an appeal from a final judgment brings up for review any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment, pursuant to CPLR 5501[a][1]. However, since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the order denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue her opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is not brought up for review. 

Rogers v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, NY Slip Op 02216 (2d Dep't April 24, 2024)

Here is the decision.