Practice point: In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appealed the denial of its CPLR 3211 motion. The Appellate Division reversed the motion court, and dismissed the complaint.
The injured plaintiff allegedly fell while in a defendant-owned boat that was returning her to the cruise ship. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (2), and (8), arguing that the court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction based on the forum selection and one-year time limitation clauses in the contract of carriage which was printed on plaintiff's ticket.
The Appellate Division found that defendant's submissions established that the contract of carriage included a clause requiring that any disputes between the parties "shall be litigated, if at all, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, or as to those lawsuits to which the Federal Courts of the United States lack subject matter jurisdiction, before a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A. to the exclusion of the Courts of any other county, state or country." In addition, the contract provided that an action to recover damages for personal injuries "shall not be maintainable unless filed within one year after the date of the injury." Defendant also established that plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to review the ticket, and there is no allegation of fraud or overreaching.
Student note: A contractual forum selection clause contained in a cruise passenger ticket is generally enforceable, as long as it has been reasonably communicated to the passenger and does not violate notions of fundamental fairness. The submission thereof constitutes documentary evidence that may provide a proper basis for dismissal of an action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).
Case: Fritsche v Carnival Corp., NY Slip Op 07618 (2d Dept. 2105)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Leave to renew and reargue.
October 28, 2015
Summary judgment in an auto accident action.
Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability. As there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that he or she is free from comparative negligence. Here, in support of its motion, plaintiff submitted a transcript of defendant's deposition testimony which failed to establish that defendant's alleged statutory violation was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that plaintiff's conduct did not contribute to the happening of the accident.
Student note: In light of plaintiff's failure to meet its prima facie burden, the Appellate Division did not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers.
Case: Frey v. Richmond Hill Lumber & Supply, NY Slip 07617 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A contractual forum selection clause contained in a cruise passenger ticket.
Student note: In light of plaintiff's failure to meet its prima facie burden, the Appellate Division did not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers.
Case: Frey v. Richmond Hill Lumber & Supply, NY Slip 07617 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A contractual forum selection clause contained in a cruise passenger ticket.
October 27, 2015
An allegation of retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296(1).
Practice point: Plaintiff is an Asian-American woman who served as defendant's comptroller. She alleges that defendant terminated her employment in retaliation because she cooperated and provided testimony to a grand jury regarding alleged criminal activity of a city councilperson, and that defendant subsequently hired a less qualified, white male to fill her former position. Defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, the Supreme Court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division reversed.
The Appellate Division held that the complaint fails to state a cause of action alleging retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296(1)(e), which makes it unlawful to retaliate against an employee because he or she opposed statutorily forbidden discriminatory practices. To make a prima facie showing of retaliation under the statute, a claimant must show that (1) the claimant was engaged in protected activity; (2) the claimant's employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity; (3) the claimant suffered an adverse employment action based upon his or her activity; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. An employee engages in a protected activity by opposing or complaining about unlawful discrimination. Here, plaintiff's grand jury testimony was unrelated to opposing or complaining about statutorily prohibited discrimination, and, therefore, was not protected activity within the meaning of the statute.
Student note: In considering a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true; afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference; and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.
Case: Clarson v. City of Long Beach, NY Slip Op 07614 (2d Dept. 2015
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment in an auto accident action.
The Appellate Division held that the complaint fails to state a cause of action alleging retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296(1)(e), which makes it unlawful to retaliate against an employee because he or she opposed statutorily forbidden discriminatory practices. To make a prima facie showing of retaliation under the statute, a claimant must show that (1) the claimant was engaged in protected activity; (2) the claimant's employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity; (3) the claimant suffered an adverse employment action based upon his or her activity; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. An employee engages in a protected activity by opposing or complaining about unlawful discrimination. Here, plaintiff's grand jury testimony was unrelated to opposing or complaining about statutorily prohibited discrimination, and, therefore, was not protected activity within the meaning of the statute.
Student note: In considering a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true; afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference; and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.
Case: Clarson v. City of Long Beach, NY Slip Op 07614 (2d Dept. 2015
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment in an auto accident action.
October 26, 2015
Discovery and medical records in a personal injury action.
Practice point: The Appellate Division modified the motion court's order denying defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to provide an unrestricted authorization for production of his entire employment file. The Appellate Division granted the motion to the extent of requiring plaintiff to provide an authorization for any medical records related to the claimed injuries, from one year prior to the accident at issue to the present, and otherwise affirmed.
The Appellate Division explained that, as plaintiff failed to proffer any reason for not complying with the preliminary conference order directing him to provide a written authorization for release of the medical records, defendants' motion should be granted to the extent indicated. However, the Appellate Division found that the motion court providently exercised its discretion in determining that discovery of other documents that may be contained in plaintiff's employment file, including disciplinary records, is not material and necessary to the defense of the action.
Student note: By bringing this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly suffered in a motor vehicle accident, plaintiff placed his medical condition in controversy and waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to pertinent medical records.
Case: Almonte v. Mancuso, NY Slip Op 07593 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: An allegation of retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296(1).
The Appellate Division explained that, as plaintiff failed to proffer any reason for not complying with the preliminary conference order directing him to provide a written authorization for release of the medical records, defendants' motion should be granted to the extent indicated. However, the Appellate Division found that the motion court providently exercised its discretion in determining that discovery of other documents that may be contained in plaintiff's employment file, including disciplinary records, is not material and necessary to the defense of the action.
Student note: By bringing this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly suffered in a motor vehicle accident, plaintiff placed his medical condition in controversy and waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to pertinent medical records.
Case: Almonte v. Mancuso, NY Slip Op 07593 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: An allegation of retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296(1).
October 23, 2015
Summary judgment in a rear-end collision action.
Practice point: The Appellate Division reversed, and dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that his vehicle was stopped when it was rear-ended by defendant. Defendant's contention that plaintiff stopped short is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence.
Student note: A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes, prima facie, negligence on the part of the rear vehicle's driver.
Case: Padilla v. Zulu Servs., Inc., NY Slip Op 07587 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Discovery and medical records in a personal injury action.
Student note: A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes, prima facie, negligence on the part of the rear vehicle's driver.
Case: Padilla v. Zulu Servs., Inc., NY Slip Op 07587 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Discovery and medical records in a personal injury action.
October 22, 2015
A motion to set aside a jury verdict.
Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the motion which was to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability
and for judgment as a matter of law. The defendants failed to
demonstrate that there was no valid line of reasoning and permissible
inferences which could lead rational people to the conclusion reached by
the jury based on the evidence presented at trial, pursuant to CPLR 4404[a].
The Appellate Division also affirmed denial of that branch of the motion which was to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is for the jury to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference in this regard is accorded to the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. The Appellate Division found that, here, the disputed testimony of the parties presented issues of credibility which were for the jury to resolve.
Student note:: A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence.
Case: Daniel v. Thomas, NY Slip Op 07467 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment in a rear-end collision action.
The Appellate Division also affirmed denial of that branch of the motion which was to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is for the jury to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference in this regard is accorded to the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. The Appellate Division found that, here, the disputed testimony of the parties presented issues of credibility which were for the jury to resolve.
Student note:: A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence.
Case: Daniel v. Thomas, NY Slip Op 07467 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment in a rear-end collision action.
October 21, 2015
Constructive discharge, retaliation, and sexual harassment.
Practice point: The Appellate Division reversed the motion court, and reinstated plaintiff's retaliation claim, with leave to litigate both that cause of action and her claim for sexual harassment under a theory of constructive discharge.
After plaintiff allegedly was sexually assaulted, defendant suspended the offending supervisor, conducted an investigation, found that the offending supervisor had engaged in "inappropriate conduct," and disciplined the supervisor by giving him what, in effect, was a final warning. Defendant then informed plaintiff that the supervisor would be returning to work with plaintiff. When plaintiff asked that she be separated from the supervisor, defendant offered only to transfer her from the evening shift to an early morning shift, which would entail a pay cut and a functional demotion, because there would be no acting supervisor positions available.
Student note: The Appellate Division determined that plaintiff raised issues of fact as to whether defendant constructively discharged her by deliberately creating working conditions that were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. Plaintiff also raised triable issues of fact as to her retaliation cause of action, since the record shows that she formally complained about the sexual harassment and was constructively discharged within a short time thereafter, permitting an inference of a causal connection between her complaint and the constructive discharge.
Case: Teran v. JetBlue Airways Corp., NY Slip 07546 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A motion to set aside a jury verdict.
After plaintiff allegedly was sexually assaulted, defendant suspended the offending supervisor, conducted an investigation, found that the offending supervisor had engaged in "inappropriate conduct," and disciplined the supervisor by giving him what, in effect, was a final warning. Defendant then informed plaintiff that the supervisor would be returning to work with plaintiff. When plaintiff asked that she be separated from the supervisor, defendant offered only to transfer her from the evening shift to an early morning shift, which would entail a pay cut and a functional demotion, because there would be no acting supervisor positions available.
Student note: The Appellate Division determined that plaintiff raised issues of fact as to whether defendant constructively discharged her by deliberately creating working conditions that were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. Plaintiff also raised triable issues of fact as to her retaliation cause of action, since the record shows that she formally complained about the sexual harassment and was constructively discharged within a short time thereafter, permitting an inference of a causal connection between her complaint and the constructive discharge.
Case: Teran v. JetBlue Airways Corp., NY Slip 07546 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A motion to set aside a jury verdict.
October 20, 2015
A bus driver's alleged negligence, and a summary judgment motion.
Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the motion's denial, finding that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of the driver's negligence by relying on the parties' deposition testimony, which showed that plaintiff was riding his bicycle in the middle lane of traffic, and defendant bus driver came up behind him and, without honking or signaling, moved the bus toward the left lane in an attempt to pass the bicycle. The evidence that defendant driver changed lanes without signaling or leaving a safe distance between vehicles, establishes defendants' negligence, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1122[a], 1128.
Student note: Defendant driver's testimony that he believed the accident occurred because plaintiff merged toward the left into the bus is speculative and insufficient to raise an issue of fact.
Case: Velasquez v. MTA Bus Co., NY Slip Op 07536 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Constructive discharge, retaliation, and sexual harassment.
Student note: Defendant driver's testimony that he believed the accident occurred because plaintiff merged toward the left into the bus is speculative and insufficient to raise an issue of fact.
Case: Velasquez v. MTA Bus Co., NY Slip Op 07536 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Constructive discharge, retaliation, and sexual harassment.
October 19, 2015
A motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3213.
Practice point: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover on a promissory note and personal guaranty by motion. When the motion court denied, plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed.
The Appellate Division found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the promissory note, which contained an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to pay, the personal guaranty, and proof of the defendants' failure to make payments on the note according to its terms. In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense.
Student note: The motion on an instrument for money only is not defeated by the alleged breach of a related contract absent a showing that the contract and the instrument are intertwined and that the alleged defenses create fact issues. Here, there was a mutual stock sale exchange and purchase agreement, but the Appellate Division found that defendants' evidence failed to establish that the agreement and the promissory note were intertwined, such that a breach of the related agreement might create a defense to payment on the note.
Case: Chervinsky v. Rezhets, NY Slip Op 07463 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A bus driver's alleged negligence, and a summary judgment motion.
The Appellate Division found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the promissory note, which contained an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to pay, the personal guaranty, and proof of the defendants' failure to make payments on the note according to its terms. In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense.
Student note: The motion on an instrument for money only is not defeated by the alleged breach of a related contract absent a showing that the contract and the instrument are intertwined and that the alleged defenses create fact issues. Here, there was a mutual stock sale exchange and purchase agreement, but the Appellate Division found that defendants' evidence failed to establish that the agreement and the promissory note were intertwined, such that a breach of the related agreement might create a defense to payment on the note.
Case: Chervinsky v. Rezhets, NY Slip Op 07463 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A bus driver's alleged negligence, and a summary judgment motion.
October 16, 2015
Standing to commence a foreclosure action.
Practice point: A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced. Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation.
Student note: Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief. However, on a defendant's motion, the defendant must establish, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing as a matter of law.
Case: Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Green, NY Slip Op 07460 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: A motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3213.
Student note: Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief. However, on a defendant's motion, the defendant must establish, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing as a matter of law.
Case: Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Green, NY Slip Op 07460 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: A motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3213.
October 15, 2015
A motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars.
Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion, noting that plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay of two years after filing the note of issue. The excuse of law office failure was offered only in the reply affirmation, and so it was not properly before the motion court. In any event, the Appellate Division held that it was not a reasonable excuse. In addition, plaintiff did not offer admissible evidence that the new injuries were caused by the accident, or that there is a causal connection between the new injuries and the original injuries alleged
Student note: While leave to amend is given freely in the absence of prejudice or surprise, when leave is sought on the eve of trial it will be granted sparingly. In addition, where, as here, there is an inordinate delay in making the motion and new injuries are alleged, there must a showing of a reasonable excuse for the delay that the the proposed amendment has merit.
Case: Canals v. Lai, NY Slip Op 07237 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Standing to commence a foreclosure action.
Student note: While leave to amend is given freely in the absence of prejudice or surprise, when leave is sought on the eve of trial it will be granted sparingly. In addition, where, as here, there is an inordinate delay in making the motion and new injuries are alleged, there must a showing of a reasonable excuse for the delay that the the proposed amendment has merit.
Case: Canals v. Lai, NY Slip Op 07237 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Standing to commence a foreclosure action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)