Fraud.

Practice point: The action must be commenced within six years of the fraud, or within two years from the time the plaintiff discovered it, or, with reasonable diligence, could have.

Students should note that plaintiff will be held to have discovered the fraud when it is established that he was possessed of facts from which the fraud could reasonably be inferred.

Gorelik v. Vorhand, NY Slip Op 03207 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is depositions.

Labor Law § 240(1).

Practice point: Where the worker is engaged in routine maintenance, the statute does not apply.

Students should note that the fact that the injured plaintiff was the only witness to the accident does not preclude summary judgment in his favor.

Fox v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., NY Slip Op 03205 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue is fraud.

Notice of claim.

Practice point: Service of the notice within 90 days after accrual of the claim is a condition precedent for commencing a tort action against the defendant town, pursuant to General Municipal Law §§ 50-e[1][a], 50-i[1].

Students should note that a late notice, served without leave of the court, is a nullity.

Carafora v. Town of Newburgh, NY Slip Op 03197 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is Labor Law § 240(1).

Real estate contracts.

Practice point: Once the contractual time-of-the-essence closing date was waived, plaintiffs were within their rights to unilaterally set a date.

Students should note that defendants' assertion that the date was "not good" for them is insufficient to raise a fact issue as to the date's reasonability.

Chaves v. Kornfeld, NY Slip Op 03102 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is notice of claim.

Tort liability.

Practice point: Liability for a dangerous condition is generally predicated on ownership, control or a special use of the property.

Students should note that, for liability, control of the work is a critical factor in determining whether a party is an independent contractor or an employee.

Lopez v. Allied Amusement Shows, Inc., NY Slip Op 03097 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is real estate contracts.

Summary judgment.

Practice point:  The opponent is entitled to further discovery when it appears that facts supporting the opposition may exist but cannot yet be stated.

Students should note that this is especially so when there was not a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the making of the motion.

Nicholson v. Bader, NY Slip Op 03041 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is tort liability.

School injuries.

Practice point: To recover damages for failure to provide adequate supervision, plaintiff must demonstrate that the school was on notice, such that a third-party's acts could reasonably have been anticipated.

Students should note that the impulsive act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence.

Gomez v. Floral Park-Bellrose Union Free School Dist., NY Slip Op 03028 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue is summary judgment.

Workers' compensation.

Practice point: Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) provide that an employee who elects compensation benefits may not sue the employer in an action at law.

Students should note that these exclusivity provisions apply to special employers, as well as direct employers.

D'Alessandro v. Aviation Constructors, Inc., NY Slip Op 03021 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is injuries at school.

The emergency doctrine.

Practice point: In a sudden or unexpected circumstance where there is no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, the actor may not be liable for negligence if the actions taken were reasonable and prudent.

Students should note that the reasonableness of an actor's response is ordinarily a question of fact.

Crawford-Dunk v. MV Transp., Inc., NY Slip Op 03019 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is workers' compensation.

Landowner's duties.

Practice point: The fact that a defect may be open and obvious does not negate the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, but may raise a question as to plaintiff's comparative negligence.

Students should note that whether a dangerous condition exists on real property, making the landowner liable, is generally a fact question for the jury.

Clark v. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc., NY Slip Op 03016 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is the emergency doctrine.

Labor Law.

Practice point: On a § 240(1) claim, an injured plaintiff does not have to prove that the hoist was defective, only that he was not given proper protection.

Students should note that uncertainty as to exactly what preceded the accident does not create an issue of fact as to proximate cause.

Arnaud v. 140 Edgecomb LLC, NY Slip Op 02951 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is landowner's duties.