A motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division determined that the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 by submitting the two subject contracts, each of which contained the defendant's unconditional promise to pay a sum certain, and evidence demonstrating the defendant's failure to make the payments called for by their terms.  The Appellate Division found that, contrary to the defendant's contention, in opposition to the plaintiff's motion, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to any circumstances that would alter his unconditional obligation to pay the amounts due.

Student note:  Pursuant to CPLR 3213, a party may commence an action by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint when the action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment.  An instrument is considered to be for the payment of money only if it contains an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain over a stated period of time.  A document comes within the ambit of CPLR 3213 if a prima facie case would be made out by the instrument and a failure to make the payments called for by its terms.  However, the instrument does not qualify if outside proof is needed, other than simple proof of nonpayment or a similar de minimis deviation from the face of the document.  While a defendant can defeat the motion by offering evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, averments merely stating conclusions, of fact or of law, are insufficient.

Case:  Sisters of Holy Child Jesus at Old Westbury, Inc. v. Pallotta, NY Slip Op 06504(2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A golf-cart injury and assumption of risk.

Dismissal of a legal malpractice claim.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal, finding that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not fail to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession.  The defendants' evidentiary submissions demonstrated that the notice of claim and the pleadings prepared by them in the underlying personal injury action adequately set forth the theory of negligence allegedly omitted, and that the settlement of the underlying action was not effectively compelled by any mistakes on their part.  In opposition, the plaintiffs' submissions, including an expert's conclusory affirmation, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs' reliance upon the same evidence in support of their cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was similarly insufficient to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice.

Student note:  In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession' and that the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. The claim may remain viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if the settlement was effectively compelled by counsel's mistakes.

To succeed on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a legal malpractice action, the defendant must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one essential element of the cause of action.

Case:  Feldman v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, NY Slip Op 06491 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Practice point:  To prevail on the motion, a plaintiff is required to submit evidence in admissible form establishing, prima facie, that the defendant was negligent and that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault.  Here, plaintiff submitted his attorney's affirmation, a copy of the pleadings, and his own affidavit, which consisted of a conclusory one-paragraph description of the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's finding that plaintiff did not establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as his affidavit did not sufficiently demonstrate how the accident occurred and failed to eliminate triable issues as to which party or parties were at fault.

Student note:  As plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden, the motion was denied without regard to the sufficiency of defendants' opposition papers.

Case:  Derieux v. Apollo N.Y. City Ambulette, Inc., NY Slip Op 06490 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  Dismissal of a legal malpractice claim.

CPLR 317 and an alleged failure to have received process.

Practice point:   The Appellate Division reversed the motion court and found that defendant, who was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(4), failed to make the requisite showing that she did not receive the summons and complaint in time to defend the action.

Student note:  Pursuant to CPLR 317, a defendant who is served other than by personal delivery may defend the action based on the court's finding that defendant did not personally receive the summons in time and has a meritorious defense.

Case:  Citimortgage v. Financhiaro, NY Slip Op 06489 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

A failed motion to vacate a default.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion, noting that a defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering a complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely must show both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. 

Here, the Appellate Division found that defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the default.  The bare and unsubstantiated denial of service lacked the factual specificity and detail required to rebut the prima facie proof of proper service set forth in the affidavit of service of the plaintiff's process server.  In addition, the conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated allegation of law office failure did not constitute a reasonable excuse. 

Student note:  As defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse, it was unnecessary for the Appellate Division to consider whether she sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense.

Case:  Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Lucero, NY Slip Op 06487 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  CPLR 317 and an alleged failure to have received process.

Deciding whether a statement is of and concerning the plaintiff in a defamation action.

Practice point:  In a defamation action, whether a plaintiff has demonstrated that a particular statement names or so identifies him so that the statement can be said to be of and concerning that plaintiff may be decided as a matter of law and need not be determined by a jury.

The Appellate Division held that where, as here, the statement does not name the plaintiffs at all and contains nothing that would cause a reader to think defendant was referring to them, the statement is not of and concerning the plaintiffs.

Student note:  Similarly, where an allegedly defamatory statement is directed at a company, it does not implicate the company's suppliers, partners, vendors or affiliated enterprises, even if they sustain injury as a result.

Case:  Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v. CBS News Inc., NY Slip Op 06409 (1st Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: A failed motion to vacate a default.

Setting aside the jury's verdict in a medical malpractice action.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the granting of plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's verdict to the extent of ordering a new trial on one of plaintiff's theories of liability.

The Appellate Division found that the verdict regarding the timing of plaintiff's MRI was at odds with any fair interpretation of the evidence, requiring a new trial on his theory that defendant departed from good and accepted standards of neurosurgical care by failing to immediately obtain an MRI. Defendant failed to explain how waiting nearly 24 hours to examine plaintiff fell within the relevant standard of care. Upon his examination, defendant determined that plaintiff needed a transfer to a better equipped facility. Notably, defendant conceded that plaintiff needed an MRI "right away, that day," although he offered reasons for the delay. However, there were no MRI technicians available to perform scans on weekends, and he took no steps to either call a technician in or have an MRI performed elsewhere until the following day.

Student note:  The jury's finding that defendant did not deviate from the standard of care by delaying surgery does not estop plaintiff, at a second trial, from pursuing the theory that defendant failed to timely obtain an MRI.  Plaintiff's theory, premised on the timing of the MRI, is independent from his theory regarding the timing of the surgery.  To the extent that the questions could result in an inconsistent verdict, defendant failed to object to the wording of the special verdict sheet.

Case:  Tom v. Holtzman, NY Slip Op 06477 (1st Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Deciding whether a statement is of and concerning the plaintiff in a defamation action.

Disclosure.

Practice point: "There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof," pursuant to CPLR 3101[a]).  The words "material and necessary" must be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity.  However, discovery is not unlimited, and the supervision of discovery is generally left to the broad discretion of the trial court.

Student note:  Absent an improvident exercise of the trial court's discretion, its determination will not be disturbed by the Appellate Division.

Case:  Gould v. Decolator, NY Slip Op 06416 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  Setting aside the jury's verdict in a medical malpractice action.

Contracts and tort liability in favor of a third party.

Practice point:  A contractual obligation, standing alone, does not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party, excapt (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party's duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party's duty to maintain the premises safely.

Student note:  Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party.

Case:  Cioffi v. Raritan Bldg. Servs. Corp., NY Slip Op 06411 (2d dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Disclosure.

A motion to change venue.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division reversed, and granted defendant's motion, pursuant to CPLR 501, 510, and 511, to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Nassau County.

Plaintiff failed to show that enforcement of the forum selection clause would be unreasonable, unjust, or in contravention public policy, or that the inclusion of the forum selection clause in the agreement was the result of fraud or overreaching.  Moreover, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that a trial in Nassau County would be so gravely difficult that, for all practical purposes, he would be deprived of his day in court.

Student note:  A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court.

Case:  Casale v. Sheepshead Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., NY Slip Op 06410 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Contracts and tort liability in favor of a third party.

Collateral estoppel as a bar to a convicted defendant's relitigating liability in a civil action.

Practice point:  Where a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from relitigating the issue of liability.  The party seeking the benefit of estoppel must prove that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action.  The party against whom preclusion is sought must demonstrate the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination.

Student note:  The doctrine applies whether the conviction results from a plea or a trial.

Case:  Hartman v. Milbel Enters., Inc., NY Slip Op 06314 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A motion to change venue.