July 9, 2019

CPLR 7513.

Arbitrators are not permitted to award attorneys' fees, with three limited exceptions: (1) where a statute provides for the award; (2) where the award is authorized by an express provision in the agreement;  (3) where it is unmistakably clear that the parties intended the award.

Steyn v. CRTV, LLC, NY Slip Op 05341 (1st Dep't July 2, 2019)

Here is the decision.

July 8, 2019

A motion to compel arbitration.

Defendants' motion was denied because plaintiff was not a party to the agreement containing the arbitration clause, and, a separate agreement required that plaintiff's claims be litigated in New York.

BML Props. Ltd. v. China Constr. Am. Inc.,NY Slip Op 05339 (1st Dep't July 2, 2019)

Here is the decision.

July 7, 2019

A process server's affidavit.

Ordinarily, the affidavit establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service, and gives rise to a presumption of proper service. However, when the defendant submits a sworn denial of receipt of service containing specific facts to refute the statements in the process server's affidavit, the prima facie showing is rebutted. The plaintiff must establish personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing.

Bank of N.Y.Mellon v. Ortiz, NY Slip Op 05378 (2d Dep't July 3, 2019)

Here is the decision.

July 6, 2019

Contracts for the sale of real property.

To satisfy the statute of frauds, a memorandum evidencing the contract and subscribed by the party to be charged must designate the parties, identify and describe the subject matter, and state all of the essential terms of a complete agreement.

443 Jefferson Holdings, LLC v. Sosa, NY Slip Op 05376 (2d Dep't July 3, 2019)

Here is the decision.

July 5, 2019

A dismissed malpractice claim.

Since damages in a legal malpractice case are designed to make the injured client whole, a plaintiff who fails to plead actual damages fails to state a claim.

Miami Capital, LLC v. Hurwitz, NY Slip Op 05332 (1st Dep't July 2, 2019)

Here is the decision.

July 3, 2019

A guarantor's liability.

The guarantee states that it is absolute and unconditional, and that, in pertinent part, it "shall be unconditional and irrevocable, irrespective of . . . (a) the genuineness, validity or enforceability of any of the Loan Documents . . . or (g) any other circumstance, occurrence or condition . . . which might otherwise constitute a legal or equitable defense."  The guarantor-defendant's claim of fraud in the inducement is barred.

Suttongate Holdings Ltd. v. Lanconm Mgt. N.V., NY Slip Op 05196 (1st Dep't June 27, 2019)

Here is the decision.

July 2, 2019

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.

July 1, 2019

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.

June 30, 2019

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.

June 29, 2019

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.