A settling municpality-defendant.

Pursuant to CPLR 5003-a(b), a settling municipality-defendant must pay all sums due to the plaintiff within ninety days of the plaintiff's tender of the settlement documents. Pursuant to 5003-a(e), if the municipality does not make timely payment, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the amount set forth in the release, together with costs and lawful disbursements, and interest on the amount set forth in the release from the date of the tender of the release and stipulation of discontinuance.

Howell v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07178 (1st Dep't October 25, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Moving for a default judgment.

The movant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting defendant's failure to answer or appear. In opposition, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and a potentially meritorious defense to the action. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. Similarly, to extend the time to answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense, pursuant to CPLR 3012[d).

Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Movtady, NY Slip Op 07085 (2d Dep't October 24, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Judiciary Law § 487.

Under Judiciary Law § 487, an attorney who is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or who consents to any deceit or collusion, with the intent to deceive the court or any party, is liable to the injured party for treble damages. A claim of a statutory violation requires an allegation of an intent to deceive, whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct.

Aristakesian v. Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., NY Slip Op 07084 (2d Dep't October 24, 2018)

Here is the decision.

The duty to maintain public sidewalks.

Under Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210, an abutting property owner has a duty to maintain the public sidewalk, but the City is responsible for maintaining any part of the sidewalk that is within a designated bus stop location.

McCormick v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07175 (1st Dep't October 23, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Confirmation of a referee's report.

The report will be confirmed when the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility.

33-37 Farrington, LLC v. Global Universal Group, Ltd., NY Slip Op 07081(2d Dep't October 24, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a judgment.

A court's inherent discretionary power to vacate judgments is not limited to the grounds specified in CPLR 5015(a).

Wansdown Props. Corp., N.V. v. Azari, NY Slip Op 07048 (1st Dep't October 23, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Duress as a defense in a contracts action.

The threatened exercise of a legal right does not constitute duress.

Nuntnarumit v. Lyceum Partners LLC, NY Slip Op 07041 (1st Dep't October 23, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Deeming an answer timely filed.

A demonstration of ongoing settlement negotiations between a plaintiff and the defendant's insurance carrier is a reasonable excuse for the defendant's delay in answering. The court may providently exercise its discretion in denying default judgment and accepting the defendant's answer, deeming it timely filed, nunc pro tunc.

Manne v. Berkowits Sch. of Electrolysis, Inc. NY Slip Op 06997 (1st Dep't October 18, 2018)

Here is the decision.

A motion to change venue.

Pursuant to CPLR 510(2), the movant must produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county where venue was properly placed. The motion is at the sound discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be reversed absent an improvident exercise of discretion.

Sowell v. Gansburg, NY Slip Op 06958 (2d Dep't October 17, 2018)

Here is the decision.

An attorney's conflict of interest.

An attorney may not undertake a representation where a conflicting interest may, even inadvertently, affect, or give the appearance of affecting, the fiduciary obligations of the attorney-client relationship. The attorney is in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, and is not entitled to legal fees.

Saint Annes Dev. Co. v. Batista, NY Slip Op 06956 (2d Dep't October 17, 2018)

Here is the decision.

Comparative negligence.

A plaintiff is not required to demonstrate freedom from comparative negligence in order to be entitled to summary judgment as to the defendant's liability.

Chan v. Choi, NY Slip Op Op 06857 (1st Dep't October 16, 2018)

Here is the decision.