Mental Hygiene Law.

Practice point: Involuntary admission for psychiatric treatment requires clear and convincing evidence that the patient poses a substantial threat of physical harm to himself or others.

Students should note that the hospital's director must forthwith notify Mental Hygiene Legal Services, and the patient is entitled to a hearing within five days of requesting it.

Case: Rueda v. Charmaine D., NY Slip Op 06393 (1st Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.

Motion practice.

Practice point: Courts will liberally allow persons to intervene in actions where they have a bona fide interest in an issue.

Students should note that distinctions between intervention as of right and discretionary intervention are not shaply applied.

Case: Yuppie Puppy Pet Prods., Inc. v. Street Smart Realty, LLC, NY Slip Op 06401 (1st Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Tomorrow's issue: Mental Hygiene Law.

Trial practice.

Practice point: The standard for determining if a jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence is whether the evidence so favors the unsuccessful party that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation.

Students should note that if the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view.

Case: Courbertier v. Academy Bus, LLC, NY Slip Op 06289 (2d Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Monday's issue: Motion practice.

Labor Law.

Practice point: The purpose of § 240(1) is to protect workers not from routine risks but from the specific risks resulting from elevation differentials at the worksite.

Students should note that the statute covers necessary and incidental activities, even if the injury is sustained away from the site of the construction work.

Case: D'Alto v. 22-24 129th St., LLC, NY Slip Op 06291 (2d Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Tomorrow's issue: Trial practice.

Family Law.

Practice point: In order to modify a custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances requiring the modification to protect the best interests of the child.

Students should note that the standard for determining the child's best interests is the totality of the circumstances.

Case: Peralta v. Irrizary, NY Slip Op 06374 (2d Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Tomorrow's issue: Labor Law.

Torts.

Practice point: A cause of action sounding in abuse of process requires an unlawful interference with one's person or property.

Students should note that merely commencing a civil action, even with a malicious motive, is insufficient to make out the cause of action.

Case: Tenore v. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., NY Slip Op 06370 (2d Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Tomorrow's issue: Family Law.

Torts.

Practice point: A cause of action sounding in abuse of process requires an unlawful interference with one's person or property.

Students should note that merely commencing a civil action, even with a malicious motive, is insufficient to make out the cause of action.

Case: Tenore v. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., NY Slip Op 06370 (2d Dept. 2010)



Tomorrow's issue: Family Law.

Motion practice.

Practice point: If a defendant fails to pay the settlement amount within 21 days of tender of the required documents, plaintiff, without further notice, may enter a judgment for the amount, as well as interest, costs and disbursements, pursuant to CPLR 5003-1(e).

Students should note that where the release and stipulation of discontinuance are tendered by mail, the 21-day period is measured from their receipt.

Case: Klee v. America's Best Bottling Co., Inc., NY Slip Op 06361 (2d Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Tomorrow's issue: Torts.

Torts.

Practice point: Where an object capable of deteriorating is concealed from view, a property owner's duty of reasonable care requires periodic inspection of the area.

Students should note that a cause of action may sound in res ipsa loquitur if the area in question is one to which the public did not have unfettered access.

Case: Hoffman v. United Methodist Church, NY Slip Op 06360 (2d Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Monday's issue: Motion practice.

Motion practice.

Practice point: A court which renders a judgment or order may relieve a party from it on such terms as may be just, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a).

Students should note that such terms may include the imposition of a bond or undertaking.

Case: Doris v. Lewis, NY Slip Op 06357 (2d Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Tomorrow's issue: Torts.

Motion practice.

Practice point: A court which renders a judgment or order may relieve a party from it on such terms as may be just, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a).

Students should note that such terms may include the imposition of a bond or undertaking.

Case: Doris v. Lewis, NY Slip Op 06357 (2d Dept. 2010)

Here is the opinion.

Tomorrow's issue: Torts.