CPLR 2004.

"[T]he court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed." The grant of an extension is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.  In exercising its discretion, the court may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason or excuse for the delay, and any prejudice to the party opposing the motion.

Kim & Bae, P.C. v. Lee, NY Slip Op 04924 (2d Dep't June 19, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Successive motions for summary judgment.

The court considered and decided the motions as they were based on new evidence and they contributed to judicial efficiency, since they relieved the court and the movants of the burden of a plenary trial.

Elihu v. Nicoleau, NY Slip Op 05012 (1st Dep't June 20, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Judiciary Law § 21.

A Supreme Court Justice "shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he was not present and sitting therein as a judge." However, the fact that summary judgment was granted by the Justice who did not not hear oral argument does not require vacatur of the order where the motion was decided on the basis of a purely legal question.

Marti v. Rana, NY Slip Op 05011 (1st Dep't June 20, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3211(a)(4).

A party may move to dismiss a cause of action on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States.  The court need not dismiss upon this ground, but may make such order as justice requires.

21st Mtge. Corp. v. Ahmed, NY Slip Op 04899 (2d Dep't June 19, 2019)

Here is the decision.

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.