Collateral estoppel.

Practice point: A party is precluded from relitigating an issue which has been adversely decided in a prior proceeding.

Practitioners should note that the party to be precluded must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the issue in the prior proceeding.

Case: Franklin Dev. Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., NY Slip Op 02321 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Retainer agreements.

Respondeat superior.

Practice point: An employer may be held liable for its employee’s negligent or intentional acts if the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment.

Practitioners should note that liability will not attach for torts committed by an employee who is acting solely for personal motives unrelated to advancing the employer's business.

Case: Fernandez v. Rustic Inn, Inc., NY Slip Op 02320 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Collateral estoppel.

Legal malpractice.

Practice point: Absent fraud, collusion or malicious acts, an attorney is not liable to third parties not in privity for harm caused by professional negligence.

Practitioners should note that an estate, acting in its own right, may not maintain an action for legal malpractice.

Case: Estate of Saul Schneider v. Finmann, NY Slip Op 02319 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Monday’s issue: Respondeat superior.

Motion practice.

Practice point: Only an aggrieved party may appeal from an order, pursuant to CPLR 5511.

Practitioners should note that a party is aggrieved by an order when it directly affects that party's individual rights.

Case: Berrechid v. Shahin, NY Slip Op 02312 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Legal malpractice.

Administrative Law.

Practice point: To have standing to challenge a governmental action, a party must show an injury in fact.

Practitioners should note that petitioners must show that they have suffered an injury distinct from an injury to the general public.

Case: McAllan v. New York State Dept. of Health, NY Slip Op 01715 (1st Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.

Notice of claim.

Practice point: Plaintiff's unverified letters and emails to the Department of Education do not constitute a notice of claim, within the meaning of Education Law § 3813[1].

Practitioners should note that plaintiff's application for leave to file a late notice of claim will be denied as untimely if it is made beyond the one-year statute of limitations.

Case: Gastman v. Department of Educ. of City of New York, NY Slip Op 01693 (1st Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Administrative Law.

Negligence.

Practice point: The owner of an improperly parked car may be held liable to a plaintiff who is injured by the negligent driver of another vehicle.

Practitioners should note that liability requires a finding on foreseeability and proximate cause.

Case: Yavkina v. New York City Police Dept., NY Slip Op 01640 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Notice of claim.

Attorney-client privilege.

Practice point: Codified in CPLR 4503(a), the privilege belongs to the client and attaches if information is disclosed in confidence, for the purpose of facilitating legal advice or services, and in the course of a professional relationship.

Practitioners should note that communications which are shared with a third party generally are not privileged.

Case: Sieger v. Zak, NY Slip Op 01636 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Monday’s issue: Negligence.

Res judicata.

Practice point: Once a claim is concluded, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based on different theories or if seeking a different remedy.

Practitioners should note that it is sufficient if it appears from the judgment that the dismissal was on the merits.

Case: QFI, Inc. v. Shirley, NY Slip Op 01632 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Attorney-client privilege.

Medical malpractice.

Practice point: The limitations period is stayed when the course of treatment has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint.

Practitioners should note that the continuous treatment doctrine may be applied to a physician who has left a medical group when there has been subsequent treatment by group members.

Case: Mule v. Peloro, NY Slip Op 01626 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Res judicata.

Assumption of the risk.

Practice point: While generally the risk is not assumed until play has begun, it is not always necessary for the game to have been formally underway.

Practitioners should note that there is no owner liability where an injury results directly from the course of action plaintiff decided to pursue.

Case: Marino v. Bingler, NY Slip Op 01623 (2d Dept. 2009)

The opinion is here.

Tomorrow’s issue: Medical malpractice.