Labor Law § 240.

In order to invoke the statute, an appropriate safety device must be lacking or defective, thereby exposing workers to elevation-related risks, and it must have proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Here, plaintiff testified that he fell while, on his own volition, trying to climb the frame of a non-defective scaffold, which does not establish Labor Law § 240 liability.

Biaca-Neto v. Boston Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., NY Slip Op 06142 (1st Dep't August 13, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims.

Where the claims are inextricably interwoven, the court should stay judicial proceedings pending completion of the arbitration, especially where the determination of issues in arbitration may dispose of non-arbitrable matters.

Lake Harbor Advisors, LLC v. Settlement Servs. Arbitration & Mediation, Inc., NY Slip Op 06073 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Successive summary judgment motions.

Successive motions should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence. Evidence is not newly discovered simply because it was not submitted on the previous motion. Instead, it must not have been available to the movant at the time of the prior motion, and it could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means.

Hillrich Holding Corp. v. BMSL Mgt., LLC, NY Slip Op 06070 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3211(a)(1).

A motion to dismiss will be granted on the ground of documentary evidence only where the evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law.

Glenwayne Dev. Corp v. James J. Corbett, P.C., NY Slip Op 06069 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3211(a)(5).

On a motion to dismiss on the ground that the statute of limitations has expired, the moving defendant must establish, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the limitations period has been tolled or is otherwise inapplicable, or whether the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the limitations period.

Edem v. Wondemagegehu, NY Slip Op 06065 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Discovery motions.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7(a) and (c), the motion must be accompanied by an affirmation from moving counsel attesting to a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion, including the time, place, and nature of the consultation, as well as the issues discussed.

Bronstein v. Charm City Hous., LLC, NY Slip Op 06058 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3215(c).

"If the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion." The plaintiff's failure to timely seek a default may be excused on a showing of sufficient cause, which requires the plaintiff to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment and to demonstrate that the cause of action is potentially meritorious. The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Santos, NY Slip Op 06056 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 6301.

"A temporary restraining order may be granted pending a hearing for a preliminary injunction where it appears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result unless the defendant is restrained before the hearing can be had." A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a likelihood of success on the merits, the possibility of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and the balance of the equities in its favor.

Wilder v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., NY Slip Op 06054 (1st Dep't August 6, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal on forum non conventions grounds.

In the court's granting the motion, New York law does not require that an alternative forum be available.

Primus Pac. Partners 1, LP v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., NY Slip Op 06052 (1st Dep't August 6, 2019)

Here is the decision.

The doctrine of equitable estoppel.

In order to successfully invoke the doctrine, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant's subsequent and specific actions kept the plaintiff from timely bringing suit.  Here, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to whether any purported fraudulent activity affirmatively induced it to refrain from commencing this action until the statute of limitations had expired. It is insufficient to merely allege that the defendant was in some way connected to a fraudulent scheme.

Jacobson Dev. Group, LLC v. Yews, Inc., NY Slip Op 05964 (2d Dep't July 31, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A day care center's duty of care.

A provider of day care services is under a duty to adequately supervise the children in its charge, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision. In stating a claim of negligent supervision,  the plaintiff is not required to exclude every other possible cause, but need only offer evidence from which proximate cause may be reasonably inferred. The burden of proof is satisfied if the possibility of another explanation for the event is sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

A.D.G. v. Children's Ark Daycare Ctr., Inc., NY Slip Op 05959 (2d Dep't July 31, 2019)

Here is the decision.