Statute of limitations on a hostile work environment claim.

Practice point:  While a cause of action alleging discrimination on the basis of discrete adverse employment actions is timely only to the extent that the adverse employment actions took place within the statute of limitations period, a cause of action alleging hostile work environment is timely so long as one act contributing to the cause of action occurred within the statute of limitations period.

Student note:  Causes of action alleging violations of Executive Law § 296 are governed by a three-year statute of limitations, pursuant to CPLR 214[2].

Case:  Cahill v. State of N.Y. Stony Brook Univ. Hosp., NY Slip Op 03695 (2d Dep't May 11, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  CPLR 5015 and vacating a default.

Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division found that the motion court properly exercised its discretion, and affirmed the granting of the motion. Although plaintiff delayed in moving for an extension, other relevant factors weighed in favor of granting the motion, including plaintiff's diligence, the expiration of the statute of limitations on plaintiff's intentional tort claims, and the absence of any prejudice to defendant, given his actual notice of the summons and complaint.

Student note:  Where the extension is sought in the interest of justice and some factors weigh in favor of granting the motion and some do not, the Appellate Division will not disturb the motion court's exercise of discretion.

Case:  Petracca v. Hudson Tower Owners LLC, NY Slip Op 03835 (1st Dep't May 17, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Statute of limitations on a hostile work environment claim.

A fall down the stairs.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment in this action to recover damages after plaintiff allegedly was injured when she fell down a set of bleacher stairs located in a gymnasium owned by defendant. In its moving papers, defendant argued that, according to the opinion of its expert engineer, the accident could not have occurred in the manner which plaintiff claimed that it did.

The Appellate Division found that defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Its expert's affidavit was conclusory, speculative, and lacked a proper foundation, as it was based on an inspection that was conducted 14 months after the incident and did not establish that the bleachers were operating in the same manner or were in the same condition on the date of the inspection as they were on the date of the incident.

Student note:  A defendant in a premises liabilty case may demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that it did not create the condition that allegedly caused the fall or have actual or constructive notice of that condition.  Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists is generally a question of fact for the jury.

Case:  Burch v. Village of Hempstead, NY Slip Op 03694 (2d Dep't May 11, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve.

The standard for documentary evidence on a motion to dismiss.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) in this legal malpractice action. Defendant argued that documentary evidence established that it had been retained only with respect to plaintiff's Workers' Compensation claim. Defendant's letters to plaintiff, submitted by defendant on its motion, are not documentary evidence for the purpose of a 3211(a)(1) motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). Neither is the affirmation of one of defendant's members documentary evidence.

While defendant did submit documentary evidence, it did not utterly refute plaintiff's allegations, as it required to succeed on the motion.

Student note:  To qualify as documentary evidence, the evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity.  Judicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, qualify as documentary evidence, while affidavits and letters do not.

Case:  Anderson v. Armentano, NY Slip Op 03690 (2d Dep't May 11, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A fall down the stairs.

Late notices of claim and statutes of limitations.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the granting of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.  Plaintiff, suing on behalf of her infant son, failed to serve a timely notice of her medical malpractice claim, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a], and failed to seek leave to file a late notice of claim, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 5-e(5), within the applicable statute of limitations, as tolled due to the injured plaintiff's infancy, pursuant to CPLR 208.

Student note:  The fact that plaintiff served a late notice of claim before the statute of limitations had expired is without effect, because she had not obtained leave of the court.

Case:  Yessenia D. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 03653 (1st Dep't May 10, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The standard for documentary evidence on a motion to dismiss.

The Noseworthy doctrine and an inference of negligence.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division reversed the motion court and dismissed the complaint in this action to recover damages after a fall.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a transcript of the plaintiff's deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall. In addition, the defendant submitted evidence that no dangerous conditions were observed at the location where the plaintiff fell prior to the accident.

The Appellate Division found that the Noseworthy doctrine is applicable here, as the plaintiff established that she suffered from amnesia from the accident. However, the doctrine did not relieve the plaintiff of her obligation to provide some proof from which negligence can reasonably be inferred.

Student note:  The doctrine imposes a lighter burden of persuasion on a plaintiff when the plaintiff establishes that the parties are not on an equal footing with respect to knowledge of the facts surrounding the accident.

Case:  Baterna v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 03461 (2d Dep't 2016)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  Late notices of claim and statutes of limitations.

A fall on a stairway, and a denied summary judgment motion.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion, finding that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he slipped due to a loose step on a stairway in a building owned by defendant. Any ambiguity in his testimony as to the cause of his fall is attributable to his attempt at humor and to the fact that he was testifying through an interpreter.  In addition, defendant's superintendent testified that a step was loose on that stairway, and that it was repaired on the same day that plaintiff fell. The superintendent's uncertain testimony failed to eliminate any issue of fact as to which step was repaired or the time of the repair. The affidavit of defendant's managing member differed from the superintendent's testimony as to the time and location of the repair. In any event, the managing member's affidavit cannot be considered in support of the motion, because he did not indicate that the affidavit is based on his personal knowledge of the facts.

Student note: Plaintiff submitted a non-party's affidavit that raised a fact issue as to notice.  Any discrepancy between the affidavit and the non-party's prior unsworn statement raises a credibility issue that cannot be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

Case:  Almonte v. 638 W. 160 LLC, NY Slip Op 03584 (1st Dep't 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The Noseworthy doctrine and an inference of negligence.

The doctrine of res judicata.

Practice point: The doctrine of res judicata precludes a party from litigating a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter. The rule applies not only to claims actually litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation. The rationale underlying this principle is that a party who has been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate a claim should not be allowed to do so again.

Student note:  The doctrine of collateral estoppel is a narrower species of res judicata. It bars relitigation of an issue which has necessarily been decided in a prior action and is decisive of the present action if there has been a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling.

Case:  Ashley v. Ashley, NY Slip Op 03460 (2d Dep't 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A fall on a stairway, and a denied summary judgment motion.

An award of attorneys' fees.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs, the prevailing parties in this gender-based employment discrimination action. The court was not required to reduce fees to reflect a relative lack of success, as there is no per se rule against awarding fees in excess of damages recovered, and fees may be appropriate where a party recovers only nominal damages.

Student note:  A court may discount senior attorney hours where they constitute a disprorportionate amount of time spent on the matter. While a court may award costs in the absence of receipts, the court is entitled to discount those costs it deems to be unreasonable.

Case:  Hernandez v. Kaisman, NY Slip Op 03424 (1st Dep't 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The doctrine of res judicata.

Rear-end collisions and an inference of negligence.

Practice point:  A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision. Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation.

Student note:  Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a], "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway."

Case:  Hartfield v. Seenarraine, NY Slip Op 03137 (2d Dep't 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  An award of attorneys' fees.

Labor Law and accidents outside New York State.

Practice point:  Plaintiff was injured by an unguarded saw blade while working at a site located in New Jersey. At the time, he was aware that the part he was fabricating was going to be installed at a Manhattan construction site owned and operated by defendants.  Plaintiff filed several claims grounded in Labor Law §§ 200, 241[6]. The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal, as the protection afforded by the Labor Law does not extend to accidents that occurs outside New York State.

Student note:  The Labor Law's protection does not apply to out-of-state accidents even if all parties are New York domiciliaries.

Case:  Osborn v. 56 Leonard LLC, NY Slip Op 03246 (1st Dep't 2016)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue: Rear-end collisions and an inference of negligence.