Contract law.

Only a stranger to the contract can be liable for tortious interference with a contract.

Beast Invs. LLC  v. Celebrity Virtual Dining, LLC, NY Slip Op 03012 (1st Dep't May 20, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Actions to quiet title.

CPLR 212(a) provides that "[a]n action to recover real property or its possession cannot be commenced unless the plaintiff, or his predecessor in interest, was seized or possessed of the premises within ten years before the commencement of the action." However, CPLR 212 (a) must be read together with RPAPL 311, which provides that "the person who establishes a legal title to the premises is presumed to have been possessed thereof within the time required by law; and the occupation of the premises by another person is deemed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title unless the premises have been held and possessed adversely to the legal title for ten years before the commencement of the action."

Canty v. Burns, NY Slip Op 02903 (2d Dep't May 14, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur.

A party is precluded from moving to vacate a default on grounds asserted in a prior motion to vacate that had been previously denied in an order from which that party took no appeal or on grounds that were apparent at the time that the party made the prior motion but were not asserted therein.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Farkas, NY Slip Op 02900 (2d Dep't May 14, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law. In order to be considered documentary, the evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity, that is, it must be essentially unassailable. Judicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, qualify as documentary evidence. However, affidavits and letters are not documentary evidence.

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must liberally construe the complaint, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. The motion must be denied unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it.

Atlasman v. Korol, NY Slip Op 02898 (2d Dep't May 14, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Jurisdiction in equity.

A court will not exercise jurisdiction in equity where there is an adequate remedy at law.

Aerogen, LLC v. Tapjets Holdings, Inc., NY Slip Op 02990 (1st Dep't May 15, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to amend.

Leave to amend a pleading under CPLR 3025(b) should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment would unfairly prejudice or surprise the opposing party, or is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. A determination whether to grant leave is within the Supreme Court's broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed on appeal. In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion is predicated and whether there is a reasonable excuse for the delay.

Askari v. McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, NY Slip Op 02897 (2d Dep't May 14, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

The parties do not have to wait until the summary judgment stage for a court to interpret a contract as courts routinely interpret contracts on CPLR 3211(a)(7) motions.

South32 Chile Copper Holdings Pty Ltd v. Sumitomo Metal Min. Co., Ltd., NY Slip Op 02892 (1st Dep't May 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Landlord-tenant.

Where the original lease includes an option to renew, the tenant's exercise of it does not create a new lease; rather, it is a prolongation of the original agreement for a further period.

3604 Jerome, LLC v. NYC Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 02864 (1st Dep't May 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Premises liability.

Liability for a dangerous condition on real property must be predicated on ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property, any one of which is sufficient to give rise to a duty of care. In the absence of one of these predicates, a party cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the dangerous or defective condition of the property.

Annabi v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., NY Slip Op 02751 (2d Dep't May 7, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Plaintiff established prima facie that the parties' settlement agreement constituted an instrument for the payment of money only and that defendants defaulted by failing to make payment under its terms, pursuant to CPLR 3213. On its motion, plaintiff submitted the settlement agreement, the amount due, and an affirmation of its general counsel, who swore to the loan history under penalty of perjury and stated that he was familiar with the facts through his "review of the records and documents kept in the file maintained by [plaintiff] with respect to this matter." The settlement agreement, which was signed by plaintiff and defendants, provided that defendants owed $7,900,000 as of October 12, 2012; that the maturity date was October 12th, 2017, the fifth anniversary date of the settlement agreement; that the interest rate was 0% a year for the first 18 months and then 5% a year thereafter, without compounding interest; and that upon default, interest was to accrue at the rate of 12% per annum.

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue as to a defense to the instrument. In light of defendants' express waiver of defenses in the loan agreement and their acknowledgement that their repayment obligation was unconditional, their potential counterclaims and affirmative defenses did not preclude CPLR 3213 relief. In addition, the settlement agreement specifies that default interest accrues on default and that payment is due on demand. The settlement agreement does not require that notice of demand be sent to the borrower.

LFR Collections, LLC. v. Tammy Tran Attorneys at Law, L.P., NY Slip Op 02852 (1st Dep't May 8, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Worksite accidents.

A lack of certainty as to exactly what preceded plaintiff's fall does not raise an issue of fact so as to preclude summary judgment.

Begonja v. Hudson Riv. Park Trust, NY Slip Op 02841 (1st Dep't May 8, 2025)

Here is the decision.