Dog bites.

Practice point: To recover in strict liability, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of them.

Practitioners should note that a "Beware of Dog" sign does not raise an issue of fact absent evidence that, prior to the incident, the dog exhibited any vicious tendencies.

Case: Palumbo v. Nikirk, NY Slip Op 01454 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Spoilation.

Personal jurisdiction.

Practice point: New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who transacts business in New York or who contracts anywhere to supply goods or services here, pursuant to CPLR 302[a][1]), even where defendant has never physically entered the state, so long as defendant's New York activities were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between those activities and plaintiff’s claim.

Practitioners should note that exercising jurisdiction must not be inconsistent with traditional notions of due process, fair play, and substantial justice, pursuant to International Shoe.

Case: Bogal v. Finger, NY Slip Op 01435 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Dog bites.

Service of process.

Practice point: Defendants’ attorney served on plaintiff’s attorney a notice of appearance in response to a courtesy copy of the summons, but, since defendants themselves had not yet been served, the notice of appearance was a nullity.

Practitioners should note that unless a defendant designates its attorney as its agent for service, pursuant to CPLR 318, defendant’s attorney may not accept service on defendant’s behalf.

Case: Spivak v. Zilberman, NY Slip Op 01400 (1st Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Personal jurisdiction.

Tortious interference with prospective employment.

Practice point: To establish this cause of action, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a job offer, and must submit evidence sufficient to raise a fact-issue as to whether defendant acted with the sole purpose of harming plaintiff or engaged in improper or unlawful conduct.

Practitioners should note that there is a “but for” standard regarding the effect of defendant’s bad acts.

Case: Murphy v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 01346 (1st Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Monday’s issue: Service of process.

Discovery.

Practice point: An action may be dismissed, pursuant to CPLR 3126, where a party disobeys a discovery order or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds should have been disclosed.

Practitioners should note that parties who do not respond expeditiously to discovery notices should be afforded reasonable latitude before dismissal, and the complaint should not be dismissed unless the noncompliance was willful, contumacious or in bad faith.

Case: Shure v. New York Cruise Lines, Inc., NY Slip Op 01335 (1st Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Tortious interference with prospective employment.

Settlement agreements.

Practice point: Emails exchanged between counsel, which contained their printed names at the end, constitute signed writings, pursuant to CPLR 2104, within the meaning of the statute of frauds, and will entitle plaintiff to a judgment based on the settlement agreement, pursuant to CPLR 5003-a(e).

Practitioners should note that defendant’s subsequent refusal to execute form releases and a stipulation of discontinuance does not invalidate the settlement agreement.

Case: Williamson v. Delsener, NY Slip 01333 (1st Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Discovery.

School Law.

Practice point: In order to commence a tort action against a school district, a claimant must serve a notice of claim within 90 days of the alleged injury, pursuant to Education Law § 3813[2] and General Municipal Law §§ 50-e[1][a]; 50-i[1].

Practitioners should note that, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), the court may, in its discretion, extend the time to serve a notice of claim.

Case: Grogan v. Seaford Union Free School Dist., NY Slip Op 01197 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Settlement agreements.

Discovery.

Practice point: The assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination is an insufficient basis for precluding discovery.

Practitioners should note that, even if a criminal prosecution is pending, the court is not obligated to stay discovery in a civil matter.

Case: Fortress Credit Opportunities I LP v. Netschi, NY Slip Op 01181 (1st Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: School Law.

Labor Law.

Practice point: To establish liability under § 241(6), a plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant's violation of a specific rule or regulation was a proximate cause of the accident.

Practitioners should note that the violation does not establish defendant's liability as a matter of law, but constitutes evidence of negligence and thereby reserves, for resolution by a jury, the issue of whether the equipment, operation or conduct at the worksite was reasonable and adequate under the particular circumstances.

Case: Seaman v. Bellmore Fire Dist., NY Slip Op01099 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Monday’s issue: Discovery

Legal malpractice.

Practice point: To establish a claim to recover damages, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages.

Practitioners should note that attorneys are free to select among reasonable courses of action in prosecuting a client’s case without thereby exposing themselves to liability for malpractice.

Case: Noone v. Stieglitz, NY Slip Op 01093 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Labor Law.

Corporations.

Practice point: A party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must establish (1) that the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked, and (2) that this domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong resulting in plaintiff's injury.

Practitioners should note that it also must be established that the defendants abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the plaintiff such that a court of equity should intervene.

Case: Lawlor v. Hoffman, NY Slip Op 01088 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Legal malpractice.