Employment Law.

Practice point: Isolated remarks and occasional episodes of harassment will not support a finding of a hostile or abusive work environment.

Students should note that a claim not raised before an administrative agency may not be raised for the first time in an article 78 proceeding.

The case is Ferrer v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, NY Slip Op 01583 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is service of process.

Administrative Law.

Practice point: Hearsay is admissible in an administrative hearing and, if sufficiently relevant and probative, hearsay alone may constitute the required substantial evidence.

Students should note that statements from witnesses absent from the hearing may form the sole basis for an agency's ultimate determination.

The case is Matter of Heisler v. Scappaticci, NY Slip Op 01472 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue is Employment Law.

Judiciary Law.

Practice point: A non-resident attorney admitted to practice in New York must maintain an office in the State.

Students should note that the failure to maintain the local office requires the striking of any pleading, without prejudice, served by the offending attorney.

The case is Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. Lester, NY Slip Op 01412 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue is Administrative Law.

Administrative Law.

Practice point: Petitioner-student seeking reinstatement did not commence the proceeding within four months after notice of the denial of her final administrative appeal, and so the proceeding was time-barred, pursuant to CPLR 217[1].

Students should note that the fact that she was not given proper instructions for the exam in question is not an issue for judicial intervention.

The case is Kingston v. Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Educ., NY Slip Op 01406 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is Judiciary Law.

Evidence.

Practice point: Accident reports prepared during the course of regular business are admissible, pursuant to CPLR 4518(a).

Students should note that the reports are admissible even though the person who prepared them is available to testify.

The case is Rodriguez v. New York City Transit Authority, NY Slip Op 01258 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue is Administrative Law.

Slip and fall in a public park.

Practice point: Defendant did not meet its initial burden of a prima facie showing that it lacked notice of the alleged hazard, since the park supervisor did not testify as to the last time the restroom had been checked or cleaned. In addition, he had no personal knowledge of the restroom’s condition at the time of the accident or during the hours before.

Students should note that the failure to disclose witness affidavits prepared prior to the action's commencement was law office failure, and that plaintiff referred to both witnesses in the General Municipal Law § 50-h examination. Therefore, the testimony will not be precluded, as long as defendant has the chance to depose the witnesses before trial.

The case is Cruz v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 01113 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue is evidence.

Adverse possession.

Practice point: Where the claim is not based on a written instrument, plaintiff must demonstrate that it cultivated, improved, or substantially enclosed the land.

Students should note that, since adverse possession is a disfavored means of gaining title, the evidentiary standard is clear and convincing.

Case: Best & Co. Haircutters, Ltd. v. Semon, NY Slip Op 01231 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Slip and fall in a public park.

Contracts.

Practice point: Strict compliance with contractual notice provisions need not be enforced where the adversary party does not claim the absence of actual notice or prejudice by the deviation.

Students should note that since the case was tried without a jury, the Appelate Division's  power to review the evidence is the same as the trial court’s, with appropriate regard given to the decision of the trial judge who was in a position to assess witness credibility.

The case is Baygold Assoc., Inc. v. Congregation Yetev Lev of Monsey, Inc., NY Slip Op 01228 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue is adverse possession.

Account stated.

Practice point: A defendant's generally phrased objection to plaintiff-law firm's billings does not constitute the specified, contemporaneous objection required to defeat an account stated cause of action.

Students should note that the cause of action cannot be defeated if defendant made partial payment against the invoices in question.

The case is LePatner & Associates v. Horowitz, NY Slip Op 00783 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is Contracts.

Motion practice.

Practice point: A party to the action must submit an affidavit in opposition to plaintiff's motion for a default judgment. The submission of an affirmation instead of an affidavit is improper, and the court will disregard it, rendering the opposing papers insufficient.

Students should note that the opposing papers will be deficient if they rely on an affidavit notarized by the attorney-defendant.

The case is Morrison Cohen LLP v. Fink, NY Slip Op 00779 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is account stated.

Dog bites.

Practice point: The fact that the dog was confined to the garage is not a predicate for liability, absent evidence that the confinement was because the owner feared that the dog would harm a visitor.

Students should note that New York does not recognize a common-law cause of action sounding in negligence to recover damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal.

The case is Roche v. Bryant, NY Slip Op 01011 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is motion practice.