Employment reviews.

Practice point: A breach of confidentiality claim cannot be based on a review-related discussion of the employee’s test scores.

Students should note that the common interest privilege which attaches to a review-related discussion of the employee’s poor performance cannot be defeated by the employee’s conclusory allegations of malice.

Panghat v. New York Downtown Hospital, NY Slip Op 04818 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue is notice of claim.

Notice of entry.

Practice point: The New York State Court Electronic Filing (NYSCEF) site’s transmission of the notice to email service addresses does not constitute service, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 205.b[h][3].

Students should note that one party must serve the other with notification of the entry, expressly stating that the transmittal constitutes notice.

Fazio v. Costco Wholesale Corp., NY Slip Op 04740 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow’s issue is employment reviews.

Post-judgment interest.

Practice point: When found liable in a tort action, the Port Authority is treated as a private corporation, pursuant to McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7106, and the fixed rate of 9% applies, pursuant to CPLR 5004.

Students should note that, pursuant to § 2501, public corporations are entitled to specialized rate provisions.

Nash v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., NY Slip Op 04597 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is notice of entry.

Legal malpractice.

Practice point: If the underlying action was time-barred, as a matter of law, the attorney's negligence was not a proximate cause of the alleged injuries, and the action will be dismissed.

Students should note that plaintiff must plead and prove actual and ascertainable damages as a result of the attorney's negligence.

Dempster v. Liotti, NY Slip Op 04408 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is post-judgment interest.

Abuse of process.

Practice point: The claim must allege that process was improperly used for a purpose other than lawfully authorized.

Students should note that malicious motive alone does not give rise to the cause of action.

Cozzani v. County of Suffolk, NY Slip Op 04407 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue is legal malpractice.

Orders to show cause.

Practice point: Pursuant to CPLR 2214(a), an order to show cause must state the relief demanded and the grounds therefor.

Students should note that, based on a general prayer, the court may grant relief not specifically requested, to the extent that it is warranted by facts plainly appearing on the papers.

Carter v. Johnson, NY Slip Op 04403 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is abuse of process.

Torts.

Practice point: A threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party.

Students should note that a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party.

Bono v. Halben's Tire City, Inc., NY Slip Op 04401 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is orders to show cause.

Foreclosures.

Practice point: In order to commence the action, plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the mortgage.

Students should note that, if plaintiff can establish its status as assignee, the recording of a written assignment after the commencement of the action does not defeat standing.

Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Weisblum, NY Slip Op 04184 (2d Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is torts.

Notice of claim.

Practice point: The notice must set forth, among other things, the time and place of the accident, and the manner in which it occurred, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e[2].

Students should note that in considering the sufficiency of the notice, the court may look beyond the claim itself to evidence adduced at the § 50-h hearing.

Portillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 03974 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is foreclosures.

Notice of a defective or unsafe condition.

Practice point: Defendant's summary judgment motion was granted when the evidence established that the desk drawer had never fallen off before, and there was no suggestion that other desks had defectively secured tracks.

Students should note that the fact that, after the accident, the drawer's track was hanging off does not establish notice, as the track mounting's condition was visible only after the drawer fell.

Fernandez v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04111 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue is notice of claim.

Summary judgment motions in lieu of complaint.

Practice point: Plaintiff's motion will be granted if it establishes the existence of an agreement that was expressly an independent, absolute and unconditional obligation to pay money only, and by submitting an affidavit of nonpayment, pursuant to CPLR 3213.

Students should note that the motion will be granted even though the obligation was referenced by underlying agreements.

Nordea Bank Finland PLC v. Holten, NY Slip Op 04102 (1st Dept. 2011).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue is notice of a defective or unsafe condition.