A landowner's duty to warn.

Practice point:  A property owner must act as a reasonable person in maintaining his or her property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the attendant circumstances. Encompassed within this duty is the concomitant duty to warn those lawfully on the premises of potentially dangerous conditions that are not readily observable.

Student note: Landowners who have or should have reason to expect that persons will find it necessary to encounter the danger, owe a duty of reasonable care to either warn such persons of the danger or to take other reasonable steps to protect them from it.

Case: Fernandez v. Rutman, NY Slip Op 05769 (2d Dept. 2014).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: A worker's fall from a ladder.

Dismissal for neglect to proceed.

Practice point:  Where a party unreasonably neglects to proceed in an action or otherwise delays in prosecuting the action, or unreasonably fails to serve and file a note of issue, the court, on its own initiative or on a motion, may dismiss the party's pleading on terms, pursuant to CPLR 3216[a]. . Before doing so, the court or the party seeking such relief must serve a written demand to resume prosecution and to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days of receipt of such demand, and further advise that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action, pursuant to CPLR 3216[b][3]..

Student note:  Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(a) and (b), an action will not be deemed ready for trial or inquest unless a note of issue is first filed, accompanied by a certificate of readiness stating that there are no outstanding requests for discovery and the case is ready.

Case:  Dutchess Truck Repair, Inc. v. Boyce, NY Slip Op 05768 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: A landowner's duty to warn.

The statute of frauds and a subscribed memorandum.

Practice point:  To satisfy the statute of frauds, a memorandum, subscribed by the party to be charged, must designate the parties, identify and describe the subject matter, and state all of the essential terms of a complete agreement. A writing is not a sufficient memorandum unless the parties' full intention can be ascertained from it alone, without recourse to parol evidence.

Student note:  The statutorily required writing need not be contained in one single document, but may be furnished by piecing together related writings.

Case:  Dahan v. Weiss, NY Slip Op 05767 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Dismissal for neglect to proceed.

An action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the causes of action to recover damages for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). The defendants' documentary evidence included forms signed by or on behalf of the plaintiffs that contained specific disclaimer provisions, pursuant to which the plaintiffs expressly acknowledged that the defendants were not authorized to provide tax advice, and that they would not rely on any such advice provided. These forms conclusively established the defendants' defense to the claims.

Student note:  A motion to dismiss a complaint based on documentary evidence, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted by the moving party utterly refutes the factual allegations of the complaint and conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law.

Case:  Air & Power Transmission, Inc. v. Weingast, NY Slip Op 05757 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The statute of frauds and a subscribed memorandum.

A managing agent's duty of care.

Practice point:  A duty of care on the part of a managing agent may arise where there is a comprehensive and exclusive management agreement between the agent and the owner that displaces the owner's duty to safely maintain the premises.  Here, the Appellate Division determined that, in moving for summary judgment, the defendants failed to submit a copy of the written management agreement. Consequently, they failed to establish, prima facie, that the managing agent owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

Student note:  As a general rule, liability for a dangerous or defective condition on real property must be predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property.

Case:  Calabro v. Harbour at Blue Point Home Owners Assn., Inc., NY  05620 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue: An action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

Emergency vehicles and the reckless disregard standard of care.

Practice point:  The reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) only applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § [*2]1104 (b). Any other injury-causing conduct of such a driver is governed by the principles of ordinary negligence.

Student note:  A driver is negligent when an accident occurs because the driver failed to see that which through the proper use of his or her senses the driver should have seen.

Case:  Benn v. New York Presbyt. Hosp., NY Slip Op 05615 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: A managing agent's duty of care.

A motion to vacate based on defective service.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division determined that the Supreme Court erred in denying, without a hearing, that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate so much of the order as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against one of the defendants. That defendant demonstrated that it was not served with copies of the summons and complaint by personal delivery; did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend the action; and had a potentially meritorious defense.

Student note:  The Supreme Court determined that the defendant deliberately attempted to avoid notice of the summons, based upon the fact that the New York Secretary of State mailed a copy of the summons and complaint by certified mail, in time for it to defend the action, and that this mailing was returned as unclaimed. However, the Supreme Court should not have made this determination without conducting a hearing as to whether the defendant received notice of the dispatch or delivery of the certified mail from the Secretary of State.

Case:  Avila v. Distinctive Dev. Co., LLC, NY Slip Op05613 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Emergency vehicles and the reckless disregard standard of care.

Waiving the right to arbitrate.

Practice point:  A party may waive its right to arbitrate by participating in litigation. The mere act of pursuing litigation does not waive the right, but, rather, the party must engage in protracted litigation that results in prejudice to the opposing party.  The prejudice may either be substantive,  or it may involve excessive delay or costs caused by the moving party's pursuit of litigation prior to seeking arbitration.  A party may be substantively prejudiced when the other party is attempting to relitigate an issue through arbitration, has participated in substantial motion practice, or seeks arbitration after engaging in discovery that is unavailable in arbitration.

Student note:  In determining what constitutes protracted litigation for the purposes of waiver, the court should consider three factors: (1) the amount of time between the commencement of the action and the request for arbitration; (2) the amount of litigation thus far; and (3) proof of prejudice to the opposing party.

Case:  Cusimano v. Schnurr, NY Slip Op 05702 (1st Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A motion to vacate based on defective service.

An auto accident, and summary judgment as to liability denied.

Practice point:  To establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was negligent and that the plaintiff was free of comparative fault. Here, in support of her motion, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the transcript of defendant's deposition, in which he stated that he remained in the far left traffic lane at all times prior to the collision, and that he felt the bump of the plaintiff's vehicle when it crossed over into his lane.

The Appellate Division determined that the motion court had properly concluded that plaintiff failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to how the accident occurred and who was at fault. The Appellate Division noted that, contrary to plaintiff's assertions, defendant's deposition testimony was not internally inconsistent on the material facts, was not inconsistent with his previously prepared accident report, and did not constitute an attempt to create a feigned issue of fact.

 Student note: In determining a motion for summary judgment, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party.

Case: Valentin v. Parisio, NY Slip Op 05423 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Waiving the right to arbitrate.

Injured while lifting a bag of, well, coins.

Practice point:  The plaintiff allegedly was injured while lifting a bag of coins as part of his assigned duties as an armored car service's courier for an armored car service.  The plaintiff commenced this action against the owner of the bank where the incident occurred, alleging that the defendant and its employees created a dangerous and defective condition by allowing the bag of coins to be overfilled.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the subject bag of coins was not over an accepted or contractually agreed upon weight at the time of the alleged incident, and that the plaintiff's injury resulted from a risk inherent in his assigned work as a courier for the service.

Student note:  In addition, the defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff elected to lift the bag with only one hand. Where, as here, a worker confronts the ordinary and obvious hazards of the employment, and has the time and other resources, perhaps a co-worker who might assist, to enable the work to be done safely, he may not hold others responsible if he chooses to perform the job so incautiously as to be injured.

Case:  Sepulveda-Vega v. Suffolk Bancorp., NY Slip Op 05419 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  An auto accident, and summary judgement as to liability denied.

An oral contract and taxi medallions.

Practice point:  The parties are taxi drivers who allegedly purchased two New York City taxicab medallions, the titles to which were subsequently memorialized in two deeds of transfer, with the plaintiff holding title to one medallion, and the defendant holding title to the other. Over time, various transfers of money were made between the parties, including one transfer from the plaintiff to the defendant in the sum of $158,375, allegedly to facilitate the defendant's purchase of the medallion to which he had title. The plaintiff alleges that the parties orally agreed that he was loaning this sum to the defendant at the interest rate of 6.25%, and that the defendant was obligated to repay this amount "whenever he can." The defendant asserts that the parties never made such an agreement. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover the amount due on the oral loan agreement, and after a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the principal sum of $158,375.

The Appellate Division affirmed, noting that, as the defendant concedes, the loan agreement at issue could have been performed within one year of the making thereof, pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][1].. Therefore, the statute of frauds does not apply to this agreement, and enforcement of the agreement is not barred by virtue of it not having been memorialized in writing.

Student note:  The Appellate Division also considered that the Supreme Court's determination in favor of the plaintiff was based upon factual conclusions arrived at by weighing the evidence presented by both parties, and was not against the weight of the evidence or contrary to law.

Case:  Saha v. Padder, NY Slip Op 05418 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Injured while lifting a bag of, well, coins.