Practice point: Venue is based on the parties' residence, pursuant to CPLR 503[a], not where the cause of action arose. The residence of a natural person is the abode, not the office.
Practitioners should note that the certificate of incorporation’s designation of a county as the location of a principal office determines corporate residence, even if there is an office in another county.
Case: Addo v. Melnick, NY Slip Op 02720 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Employment Law.
April 24, 2009
Administrative Law.
Practice point: A police officer may not recover damages for common-law negligence where an act taken in furtherance of a specific police function exposed the officer to a heightened risk of sustaining the injury.
Practitioners should note that there is no cause of action when the officer is injured while participating in a physical fitness examination intended to mimic the physical activity that officers will encounter in the field.
Case: Norman v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 01964 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Monday’s issue: Venue.
Practitioners should note that there is no cause of action when the officer is injured while participating in a physical fitness examination intended to mimic the physical activity that officers will encounter in the field.
Case: Norman v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 01964 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Monday’s issue: Venue.
April 23, 2009
Labor Law.
Practice point: To establish liability based on a falling object, pursuant to § 240(1), a plaintiff must show that, when the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that it required securing for purposes of the work.
Practitioners should note that the statute generally does not apply to objects that are part of a building's permanent structure.
Case: Marin v. AP-Amsterdam 1661 Park LLC, NY Slip Op 01959 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Administrative Law.
Practitioners should note that the statute generally does not apply to objects that are part of a building's permanent structure.
Case: Marin v. AP-Amsterdam 1661 Park LLC, NY Slip Op 01959 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Administrative Law.
April 22, 2009
Attorneys' fees.
Practice point: Plaintiff-law firm was entitled to summary judgment on its claim of account stated with a showing that defendant received and retained the invoice without objection. Plaintiff also established a claim sounding in quantum meruit by showing the firm's performance of services, and defendant’s acceptance of those services.
Practitioners should note that plaintiff's failure to comply with retainer agreement rules, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1215.1, does not preclude it from suing to recover legal fees for its services.
Case: Miller v. Nadler, NY Slip 01862 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Labor Law.
Practitioners should note that plaintiff's failure to comply with retainer agreement rules, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1215.1, does not preclude it from suing to recover legal fees for its services.
Case: Miller v. Nadler, NY Slip 01862 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Labor Law.
April 21, 2009
Medical malpractice.
Practice point: There are triable issues as to whether there was continuous treatment where plaintiff’s expert opined that plaintiff was receiving treatment for gastroinestinal disorders which were symptomatic of the colon cancer defendant failed to diagnose.
Practitioners should note that there also will be questions regarding whether there was an expectation of further treatment when, following plaintiff’s last appointment, defendant instructed her to return.
Case: Harris v. Dizon, NY Slip Op 01856 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Attorneys’ fees.
Practitioners should note that there also will be questions regarding whether there was an expectation of further treatment when, following plaintiff’s last appointment, defendant instructed her to return.
Case: Harris v. Dizon, NY Slip Op 01856 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Attorneys’ fees.
April 20, 2009
Motion practice.
Practice point: Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the submitted documentary evidence conclusively establishes, as a matter of law, a defense to the asserted claims.
Practitioners should note that, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court may freely consider plaintiff’s affidavits to remedy any defects in the complaint. The criterion is whether there actually is a cause of action, not whether one has been stated.
Case: Amaro v. Gani Realty Corp., NY Slip Op 01852 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Medical malpractice.
Practitioners should note that, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court may freely consider plaintiff’s affidavits to remedy any defects in the complaint. The criterion is whether there actually is a cause of action, not whether one has been stated.
Case: Amaro v. Gani Realty Corp., NY Slip Op 01852 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Medical malpractice.
April 17, 2009
Motion practice.
Practice point: Pursuant to CPLR 305(c), an amendment to correct a misnomer will be permitted if the court has jurisdiction over the intended defendant and if he was fairly apprised that he was the intended party.
Practitioners should note that the statute may not be used to correct the name of a defendant or to add or substitute a defendant.
Case: Smith v. Garo Enterprises, Inc., NY Slip Op 01790 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Monday’s issue: Motion practice.
Practitioners should note that the statute may not be used to correct the name of a defendant or to add or substitute a defendant.
Case: Smith v. Garo Enterprises, Inc., NY Slip Op 01790 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Monday’s issue: Motion practice.
April 16, 2009
Municipalities Law.
Practice point: A municipality has a duty to maintain its roadways in reasonably safe condition, and this duty extends to trees which are adjacent to the road and which could pose a danger to travelers.
Practitioners should note that a municipality will not be held liable unless it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
Case: Ferrigno v. County of Suffolk, NY Slip Op 01773 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.
Practitioners should note that a municipality will not be held liable unless it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
Case: Ferrigno v. County of Suffolk, NY Slip Op 01773 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.
April 15, 2009
Moton practice.
Practice point: A party who has served a summons without complaint and does not serve the complaint within 20 days of a demand must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the delay in order to avoid dismissal, pursuant to CPLR 3012[d].
Practitioners should note that law office failure to discover the demand, along with the disabled plaintiff's physical difficulties in getting to counsel's office to verify the complaint, will constitute a reasonable excuse.
Case: Nolan v. Lechner, NY Slip Op 01724 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Municipalities Law.
Practitioners should note that law office failure to discover the demand, along with the disabled plaintiff's physical difficulties in getting to counsel's office to verify the complaint, will constitute a reasonable excuse.
Case: Nolan v. Lechner, NY Slip Op 01724 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Municipalities Law.
April 14, 2009
Motion practice.
Practice point: Having failed to allege intentional infliction of emotional distress in the notice of claim, plaintiff may not later maintain that cause of action in the complaint.
Practitioners should note that for a cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress, defendant’s conduct must have been extreme, outrageous and beyond the bounds of human decency.
Case: Bayer v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 01762 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.
Practitioners should note that for a cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress, defendant’s conduct must have been extreme, outrageous and beyond the bounds of human decency.
Case: Bayer v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 01762 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.
April 13, 2009
Motion practice.
Practice point: A court may dismiss an action for want of prosecution after defendant has served plaintiff with an unheeded 90-day notice, absent a showing of justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3216(e).
Practitioners should note that a certificate of merit filed by plaintiff's counsel is not a valid substitute for a medical expert's affidavit.
Case: Smith v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 01835 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
Practitioners should note that a certificate of merit filed by plaintiff's counsel is not a valid substitute for a medical expert's affidavit.
Case: Smith v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 01835 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)