Motions to leave and/or to reargue.

A motion denominated as one for leave to renew and/or to reargue that is not based on new facts, pursuant to CPLR 2221(d)(2), is a motion for leave to reargue. The denial of the motion is not appealable.

Capital One Bank v. Phillips, NY Slip Op 03656 (2d Dep't May 23, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Fraud in the inducement.

Plaintiffs' cause of action alleging fraud in the inducement was dismissed, as it is founded on non-actionable promises of future conduct or events, and not present fact, and non-actionable opinion of defendant as to his resources and capability of undertaking the work sought by plaintiffs.

Yablon v. Stern, NY Slip Op 03650 (1st Dep't May 22, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Memorial Day.

The continuing wrong doctrine.

The doctrine may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts, and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct. The distinction is between a single wrong that has continuing effects and a series of independent, distinct wrongs.

Gibbons v. Grondahl, NY Slip Op 03646 (1st Dep't May 22, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Statute of limitations in a foreclosure action.

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, pursuant to CPLR 213[4]. The limitations period begins to run when the mortgagee or its predecessor elects to accelerate the mortgage. If the mortgage is payable in installments, the limitations period begins as to the entire debt.

DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Hirsh, NY Slip Op 03505 (2d Dep't May 16, 2018)

Here is the decision.

A hospital's vicarious liability.

The general rule is that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the acts of a physician who is not an employee of the hospital, but, instead, is one of a group of independent contractors. However, a hospital may be vicariously liable if a nonemployee physician acted as its agent, or if it exercised control over the physician.

Castro v. Durban, NY Slip Op 03503 (2d Dep't May 17, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Falling object liability under the Labor Law.

Liability under § 240(1) is not limited to cases in which the falling object is being hoisted or secured. It also applies where the plaintiff demonstrates that, at the time the object fell, it required securing.  However, the statute does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured a worker, and a plaintiff must show that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute.  While a plaintiff is not required to present evidence as to which particular safety devices would have prevented the injury, the risk requiring a safety device must be foreseeable and inherent in the work being done.

Carlton v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 03500 (2d Dep't May 16, 2018)

Here is the decision.

A fall at a construction site.

A fall through an unguarded opening in the floor of a construction site invokes Labor Law § 240(1) if an adequate safety device was not provided. A safety line and harness may be adequate for a person working over an open area or near an elevated edge. However, summary judgment is precluded where, as here, the record shows that plaintiff was wearing a harness and lanyard bu there are triable issues as to whether there were static lines for him to safely tie off.

Maman v. Marx Realty & Improvement Co., Inc., NY Slip Op 03614 (1st Dep't May 17, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Liability for a dog bite.

If the dog that bit plaintiff had no known vicious propensities, no liability will attach to the dog owner or to the veterinary hospital where the dog bite occurred.

Easley v. Animal Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 03480 (1st Dep't May 15, 2018)

Here is the decision.

An expert's opinion.

An expert's opinion is unavailing if it is unsupported by reference to any authority, standard, or other corroborating evidence.

Pena v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 03477 (1st Dep't May 15, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Setting aside a jury verdict.

Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), the verdict will be set aside if, based on the evidence presented at trial, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could possibly lead rational persons to the jury's conclusion.

Bligen v New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 03432 (1st Dep't May 10, 2018)

Here is the decision.