Piercing the corporate veil.

To hold the individual owner-defendant liable for the corporation's actions, the plaintiff must show that (1) the individual owner exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction attacked, and (2) that this domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff, resulting in plaintiff's injury. It is a heavy burden, and the fact that the individual defendant is the corporation's sole shareholder is insufficient.

Kahan Jewelry Corp. v. Coin Dealer of 47th St., Inc., NY Slip Op 05001 (1st Dep't June 20, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A Labor Law § 240(1) claim.

At the time of his fall, plaintiff was following his foreman's instructions and, therefore, he was not the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Vucetic v. NYY Langone Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 04868 (1st Dep't June 18, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A claim for an accounting.

The mere existence of a fiduciary relationship gives rise to a claim for an accounting. In the absence of a fiduciary relationship, there must be a showing that there is no adequate remedy at law.

Mullin v. WL Ross & Co. LLC, NY Slip Op 04864 (1st Dep't June 18, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Premises liability.

Liability for a dangerous condition on real property depends on ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property. A tenant's common-law duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition is limited to those areas which it occupies and controls, or of which it makes a special use.

Knight v. 177 W. 26 Realty, LLC, NY Slip Op 04685 (2d Dep't June 12, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 213[1].

The statute of limitations for a cause of action seeking to impose a constructive trust is six years. The limitations period starts upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution. If the constructive trustee acquires the property wrongfully, the statute begins to run on the date of acquisition. If the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property acquired lawfully from the beneficiary, the statute begins to run on the date the trustee breaches or repudiates the agreement to transfer the property.

Athanasatos v. Scarpa, NY Slip Op 04670 (2d Dep't June 12, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Attorney disqualification.

Absent consent, a lawyer may not advocate in one matter against another client that the lawyer represents in some other matter, even when the matters are wholly unrelated.

City & County Paving Corp. v. Titan Concrete, Inc., NY Slip Op 04776 (1st Dep't June 13, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Education Law § 3813[1].

Timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a school district.

Arroyo v. Central Islip USFD, NY Slip Op 04669 (2d Dep't June 12, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 217(1).

An article 78 proceeding challenging a petitioner's termination from government employment must be brought within four months from the date the termination becomes final and binding.

Matter of Irace v. Williams, NY Slip Op 04648 (1st Dep't June 11, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A scheme to defraud.

Liability for fraud may be premised on knowing participation in the scheme, even if the participation, standing alone, does not constitute a fraud.

Bashian & Farber, LLP v. Syms, NY Slip Op 04348 (2d Dep't June 5, 2019)

Here is the decision.

The doctrine of res judicata.

An order entered upon a party's default in appearing to oppose a motion to dismiss is not a determination on the merits, and, therefore, the doctrine does not apply.

Abdelfattah v. Najar, NY Slip Op 04346 (2d Dep't June 5, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

An order issued sua sponte is not appealable as of right.

New Globaltex Co., Ltd. v. Zhe Lin, NY Slip Op 04456 (1st Dep't June 6, 2019)

Here is the decision.