Long-arm jurisdiction.

California has jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants, based on their soliciting plaintiff in California by phone, exchanging drafts of the investor agreement by email, emailing status reports of the proposed venture, and flying to California to meet with the plaintiff.

Brothers Pac Four, LLC v. War Entertainment, LLC, NY Slip Op 05195 (1st Dep't June 27, 2019)

Here is the decision.

An alleged violation of disciplinary rules.

There is no private right of action against an attorney or law firm for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the disciplinary rules.

Karimian v. Karlin, NY Slip Op 05193 (1st Dep't June 27, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A landowner's duty of care.

While the landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the property in a safe condition, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous. Neither is there a duty where the allegedly dangerous condition can be recognized simply as a matter of common sense, or where the condition is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and can reasonably be anticipated by its users.

Cerrato v. Jacobs, NY Slip Op 05105 (2d Dep't June 26, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3016(b).

Vague and general allegations that a defendant misled the plaintiff about the defendant's financial abilities and defendant's intent to consummate the transaction are conclusory, and, as such, they are insufficient to plead fraud.

Meiterman v. Corporate Habitat, NY Slip Op 05078 (1st Dep't June 25, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3025(b).

Pursuant to the statute, leave to amend a pleading "shall be freely given."  The motion should be granted where the amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and the delay in seeking amendment does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party.

Bargil Assoc., LLC v. Crites, NY Slip Op 04902 (2d Dep't June 19, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Res judicata.

A dismissal based on the statute of limitations is a determination on the merits, and so the dismissal of the prior lawsuit precludes a subsequent action in which the issues are identical to those sought to be litigated in plaintiffs' earlier action.

Cohen v. Glass, NY Slip Op 05065 (1st Dep't June 25, 2019)

Here is the decision.

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.