Practice point: To establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship between a cleric and a congregant, there must be a showing of de facto control and dominance in the counseling relationship.
Students should note that the test is whether the congregant was inherently vulnerable and incapable of self-protection.
Case: Spielman v. Carrino, NY Slip Op 07527 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Torts.
November 4, 2010
November 3, 2010
Employment Law.
Practice point: Pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6), an employee who is entitled to receive compensation benefits may not sue the employer.
Students should note that, similarly, the employee cannot sue a special employer.
Case: Dulak v. Heier, NY Slip Op 07509 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Torts.
Students should note that, similarly, the employee cannot sue a special employer.
Case: Dulak v. Heier, NY Slip Op 07509 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Torts.
November 2, 2010
Court holiday.
The courts are closed, and so there is no post today.
Tomorrow's issue: Employment Law.
Tomorrow's issue: Employment Law.
November 1, 2010
Municipalities Law.
Practice point: A municipality, on notice of a dangerous traffic condition, may be liable if it does not consider reasonable measures to alleviate the condition, or, if it unjustifiably delays taking action.
Students should note that the municipality has a continuing duty to review its traffic plans.
Case: Turturro v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07329 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Wednesday's issue: Employment Law.
Students should note that the municipality has a continuing duty to review its traffic plans.
Case: Turturro v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07329 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Wednesday's issue: Employment Law.
October 29, 2010
Corporations.
Practice point: Persons may not be held personally liable on the corporation's contracts, provided they did not purport to bind themselves individually.
Students should note that a corporation's officers do not become liable merely because they have made decisions or taken actions that resulted in the corporation's breaching a contract.
Case: Stern v. H. DiMarzo, Inc., NY Slip Op 07327 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Municipalities Law.
Students should note that a corporation's officers do not become liable merely because they have made decisions or taken actions that resulted in the corporation's breaching a contract.
Case: Stern v. H. DiMarzo, Inc., NY Slip Op 07327 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Municipalities Law.
Corporations.
Practice point: Persons may not be held personally liable on the corporation's contracts, provided they did not purport to bind themselves individually.
Students should note that a corporation's officers do not become liable merely because they have made decisions or taken actions that resulted in the corporation's breaching a contract.
Case: Stern v. H. DiMarzo, Inc., NY Slip Op 07327 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the opinion.
Monday's issue: Municipalities Law.
Students should note that a corporation's officers do not become liable merely because they have made decisions or taken actions that resulted in the corporation's breaching a contract.
Case: Stern v. H. DiMarzo, Inc., NY Slip Op 07327 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the opinion.
Monday's issue: Municipalities Law.
October 28, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: A sanction for spoliation requires a showing that the other side disposed of critical evidence, fatally compromising the ability to defend the action.
Students should note that, generally, striking a pleading is reserved for instances of willful or contumacious conduct.
Case: Scordo v. Costco Wholesale Corp., NY Slip Op 07324 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Corporations.
Students should note that, generally, striking a pleading is reserved for instances of willful or contumacious conduct.
Case: Scordo v. Costco Wholesale Corp., NY Slip Op 07324 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Corporations.
October 27, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: A cause of action based on promissory estoppel requires a clear and unambiguous promise; reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; and an injury sustained because of that reliance.
Students should note that Civil Rights Law § 80-b serves only to return the parties to their position prior to their becoming engaged if the marriage fails to materialize.
Case: Schwartz v. Miltz, NY Slip Op 07323 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
Students should note that Civil Rights Law § 80-b serves only to return the parties to their position prior to their becoming engaged if the marriage fails to materialize.
Case: Schwartz v. Miltz, NY Slip Op 07323 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion practice.
October 26, 2010
Labor Law.
Practice point: A cause of action sounding in a violation of Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence may arise either from a dangerous condition at the work site, or from the way the work was performed.
Students should note that the owner is not liable solely because it had notice of the way in which the work was being performed.
Case: Pilato v. 866 U.N. Plaza Assoc., LLC, NY Slip Op 07157 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.
Students should note that the owner is not liable solely because it had notice of the way in which the work was being performed.
Case: Pilato v. 866 U.N. Plaza Assoc., LLC, NY Slip Op 07157 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.
October 25, 2010
Torts.
Practice point: A property owner is not liable for accidents resulting from the accumulation of snow or ice for a reasonable period of time after the storm has stopped.
Students should note that the question of whether a reasonable period of time had passed may be decided as a matter of law.
Case: Lanos v. Cronheim, NY Slip Op 07149 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Labor Law.
Students should note that the question of whether a reasonable period of time had passed may be decided as a matter of law.
Case: Lanos v. Cronheim, NY Slip Op 07149 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Labor Law.
October 22, 2010
Motion practice.
Practice point: CPLR 208’s infancy toll is personal to the infant, and does not extend to a derivative cause of action.
Students should note that by demonstrating that defendant had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claim, plaintiff establishes a lack of substantial prejudice on a motion for late service of the notice of claim.
Case: Kim L. v. Port Jervis City School Dist., NY Slip Op 07148 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday’s issue: Torts.
Students should note that by demonstrating that defendant had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claim, plaintiff establishes a lack of substantial prejudice on a motion for late service of the notice of claim.
Case: Kim L. v. Port Jervis City School Dist., NY Slip Op 07148 (2d Dept. 2010)
Here is the decision.
Monday’s issue: Torts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)