Extending the time for a notice of claim.

Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), a court may exercise its discretion to extend the time to serve a notice of claim. In determining whether to grant the extension, the court must consider whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after it arose, or within a reasonable time thereafter.  The court must also consider all other relevant circumstances, including whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice, and whether the delay will substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining a defense on the merits.

Wilson v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 02794 (2d Dep't, April 25, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Res ipsa loquitur.

When the court determines that the doctrine applies, the lack of an allegation of actual or constructive notice is not fatal to the plaintiff's claim, as notice is inferred.

Mejia v. Delgado, NY Slip Op 02893 (1st Dep't April 26, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Frivolous conduct.

The court rule, codified at 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, authorizes a court to exercise its discretion in awarding reasonable attorney's fees resulting from frivolous conduct. Conduct is frivolous if it is completely without merit in law, or advances false statements of material facts. In determining whether conduct is frivolous, the court will consider circumstances such as the time available for investigating the legal or factual bases of the conduct, and whether the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party.

Matter of Sottilare v. Fahner, NY Slip Op 02792 (2d Dep't April 25, 2018)

Documentary evidence.

A factual affidavit is not documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Celentano v. Boo Realty, LLC, NY Slip Op 02882 (1st Dep't April 26, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Failure to vacate a default.

Having failed to vacate the default, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from those allegations.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. v. Loodus, NY Slip Op 02591 (2d Dep't April 18, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Parol evidence in a contracts action.

Parol evidence of the parties' contrary intent is irrelevant in the face of the unambiguous governing documents.

P360 Spaces LLC v. Orlando, NY Slip Op 02749 (1st Dep't April 24, 2018)

Here is the decision.

A motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), the court may dismiss an action if there is another action pending, in any court, seeking the same relief.

Ember v. Denizard, NY Slip Op 02715 (1st Dep't April 19, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Labor Law § 240(1).

The statute protects workers from elevation-related hazards while they are involved in the erecting, demolishing, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure, or acts ancillary to those activities. Where the worker is engaged in routine maintenance, the statute is inapplicable.

Garnett v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., NY Slip Op 02600 (2d Dep't April 18, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Workers' Compensation.

An employee who is entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits may not sue the general employer or special employer for injuries sustained in the course of employment, pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11, 29[6]. A special employee is one who is transferred for a limited time, of whatever duration, to the service of another employer.  The determination as to whether there is a special employment relationship is generally an issue of fact requiring consideration of factors such as who controls and directs the manner of the employee's work; who is responsible for payment of wages and benefits; who furnishes equipment; who has the right to discharge the employee; and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer's or the general employer's business. General employment is presumed to continue, and the presumption can only be rebutted by a clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer.

Dube v. County of Rockland, NY Slip Op 02597 (2d Dep't April 18, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Statute of frauds and guarantees.

New York's statute of frauds requires that an agreement constituting a special promise to answer for another's debt, default, or miscarriage be memorialized in a writing signed by the party to be charged, pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][2]. Notwithstanding the statute, an oral promise to guarantee another's debt may be enforced if the plaintiff proves that the promise is supported by new consideration moving to the promisor and beneficial to the promisor, and that the parties' intention is that the promisor be a principal debtor primarily liable.

Reddy v. Mihos, NY Slip Op 02565 (1st Dep't April 17, 2018)

Here is the decision.

A negligent hiring claim.

When it is determined that the employee was acting within the scope of employment, a negligent hiring claim must be dismissed.

Kerzhner v G4S Govt. Solutions, Inc., NY Slip Op 02559 (1st Dep't April 12, 2018)

Here is the decision.