Practice point: No defamation claim lies if a complaint's allegations are pertinent to the action, since they are protected by the judicial proceedings privilege.
Students should note that the one-year statute of limitations for libel and slander starts to run on the date of publication.
Case: Casa de Meadows, Inc. v. Zaman, NY Slip Op 06712 (1st Dept 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
October 12, 2010
October 11, 2010
Court holiday.
The courts are closed today, and so there is no post.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
October 8, 2010
Insurance Law.
Practice point: An insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured for a claim arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered.
Students should note that a subcontractor's obligation to replace work it damages goes to potential liability and does not create an insurable interest in the entire building.
Case: St. Paul Fire v. FD Sprinkler, NY Slip Op 06755 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tuesday's issue: Torts.
Students should note that a subcontractor's obligation to replace work it damages goes to potential liability and does not create an insurable interest in the entire building.
Case: St. Paul Fire v. FD Sprinkler, NY Slip Op 06755 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tuesday's issue: Torts.
October 7, 2010
Contracts.
Practice point: Plaintiff's knowledge of defendant's wrong act is not necessary to start the running of the Statute of Limitations.
Students should note that no appeal lies from a ruling made during oral argument.
Case: de Hermandez v. Bank of Nova Scotia, NY Slip Op 06754 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Insurance Law.
Students should note that no appeal lies from a ruling made during oral argument.
Case: de Hermandez v. Bank of Nova Scotia, NY Slip Op 06754 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Insurance Law.
October 6, 2010
Ethics.
Practice point: Disbarment is warranted where there is a pattern of neglect of client matters and a failure to comply with court orders.
Students should note that the Court gives significant weight to the discipline imposed by the jurisdiction where disciplinary charges were originally brought, even if a different sanction would have been imposed in New York.
Case: Matter of Jaffe, NY Slip Op 06717 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Contracts.
Students should note that the Court gives significant weight to the discipline imposed by the jurisdiction where disciplinary charges were originally brought, even if a different sanction would have been imposed in New York.
Case: Matter of Jaffe, NY Slip Op 06717 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Contracts.
October 5, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: A defendant looking to vacate a default judgment must demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense.
Students should note that defendant's excuse that the insurer disclaimed coverage and that she could not afford an attorney is insufficient as a matter of law.
Case: O'Donnell v. Frangakis, NY Slip Op 06622 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Ethics.
Students should note that defendant's excuse that the insurer disclaimed coverage and that she could not afford an attorney is insufficient as a matter of law.
Case: O'Donnell v. Frangakis, NY Slip Op 06622 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Ethics.
October 4, 2010
Family Law.
Practice point: A custody agreement will not be set aside unless there is a significant change in circumstances, and the modification is in the best interests of the child.
Students should note that a noncustodial parent seeking the change must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing.
Case: Jurgensen v. Jurgensen, NY Slip Op 06617 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the opinion.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
Students should note that a noncustodial parent seeking the change must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing.
Case: Jurgensen v. Jurgensen, NY Slip Op 06617 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the opinion.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
October 1, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: Stipulations of settlement are contracts and will be interpreted as such.
Students should note that the stipulation will be undone only on cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud or mistake.
Case: Singh v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., NY Slip Op 06626 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Family Law.
Students should note that the stipulation will be undone only on cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud or mistake.
Case: Singh v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., NY Slip Op 06626 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Family Law.
September 30, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: CPLR 3101(a) will be construed liberally so that there will be disclosure of any material that is even arguably relevant.
Students should note that the essential test is one based on usefulness and reason.
Case: Lentz v. Nic's Gym, Inc., NY Slip Op 06620 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
Students should note that the essential test is one based on usefulness and reason.
Case: Lentz v. Nic's Gym, Inc., NY Slip Op 06620 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
September 29, 2010
Contracts.
Practice point: All contracts imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of performance.
Students should note that, pursuant to this covenant, neither party shall do anything which destroys the other party's right to the fruits of its contract.
Case: Forman v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., NY Slip Op 06606 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
Students should note that, pursuant to this covenant, neither party shall do anything which destroys the other party's right to the fruits of its contract.
Case: Forman v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., NY Slip Op 06606 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
September 28, 2010
Insurance Law.
Practice point: Noncompliance with a notice condition relieves the insurer of its obligation under the contract.
Students should note that a 60-day delay, without an excuse, violates the notice condition as a matter of law.
Case: Hermany Farms, Inc. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., NY Slip Op 06607 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the opinion.
Tomorrow's issue: Contracts.
Students should note that a 60-day delay, without an excuse, violates the notice condition as a matter of law.
Case: Hermany Farms, Inc. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., NY Slip Op 06607 (1st Dept. 2010)
Here is the opinion.
Tomorrow's issue: Contracts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)