Assumption of the risk.

Practice point: Rollerblading on a public sidewalk does not constitute a sponsored sporting event or recreational activity for the purpose of applying the doctrine.

Students should note that the doctrine is limited to protecting sponsors of sporting and recreational activities from liability for damages arising from participation in those activities.

The case is Ashbourne v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 01687 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is dog bites.

Legal malpractice.

Practice point: Expert testimony is needed to establish that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the profession.

Students should note that attorneys are free to select among reasonable courses of action in prosecuting clients' cases without exposing themselves to liability for malpractice.

The case is Healy v. Finz & Finz, P.C., NY Slip Op 01616 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is assumption of the risk.

Fraudulent inducement and promissory fraud.

Practice point: General allegations that defendant entered into a contract while lacking the intent to perform it are insufficient to support the claim.

Students should note that if adverse information about defendant was readily verifiable through public records, there could be no justifiable reliance on defendant's misrepresentations.

The case is Fariello v. Checkmate Holdings, LLC, NY Slip Op 01592 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue is legal malpractice.

Legal malpractice.

Practice point: A claim for legal malpractice is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that the settlement was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel.

Students should note that, at the pleading stage, plaintiff is required only to plead facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that defendant's negligence caused a loss.

The case is Garnett v. Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, NY Slip Op 01589 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is fraudulent inducement and promissory fraud.

Service of process.

Practice point: Service on the corporate defendant was complete when the summons and complaint were personally served on an authorized agent of the Secretary of State, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306[b][1] and CPLR 311. 

Students should note that completion of service is not contingent upon the Secretary of State's actually mailing the papers. 

The case is Claudio v. Show Piers on the Hudson, NY Slip Op 01585 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is legal malpractice.

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.