A motion to vacate or modify a preliminary injunction.

The motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court and may be granted on a showing of compelling or changed circumstances that render continuation of the injunction inequitable.

456 Johnson, LLC v. Maki Realty Corp., NY Slip Op 08374 (2d Dep't November 20, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 5015[a][2], [3].

The motion for vacatur on the ground of newly discovered evidence is properly denied where the evidence on which the movant relies could have been timely submitted in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Williams, NY Slip Op 08372 (1st Dep't November 19, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3211(a)(7).

Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on the motion to dismiss the complaint and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question is whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one. Unless it is shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that there is no significant dispute regarding it, the motion should be denied.

Williston v. Jack Resnick & Sons, Inc., NY Slip Op 08247 (2d Dep't November 13, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Claims agains the Port Authority.

The Port Authority, albeit bistate, is subject to New York's laws involving health and safety, insofar as its activities may externally affect the public. Specifically, courts have repeatedly held that the Port Authority is subject to New York Labor Law.

Wortham v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., NY Slip Op 08278 (1st Dep't November 14, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3116[a].

A movant's submission of its own deposition testimony is deemed to be an adoption of the testimony as accurate, and, therefore, admissible.

Singh v. New York City Hous. Auth., NY Slip Op 08272 (1st Dep't November 14, 2019)

Here is the decision.

An alleged ethical violation.

A violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in itself, does not give rise to a private cause of action against an attorney or a law firm.

Doscher v. Meyer, NY Slip Op 08171 (2d Dep't November 13, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 4518.

An affidavit which states that the attached documents were kept in the ordinary course of plaintiff's business and explains that they were necessarily kept in order to track the business's charges and credits is sufficient to support the admissibility of the documents as business records.

Marina Towers Assoc., L.P. v. Yu, NY Slip Op 08267 (1st Dep't November 14, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3025[b].

On a motion to dismiss, the motion court may not sua sponte grant plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint in the absence of a cross motion and an accompanying proposed pleading.

Sutton Animal Hosp. PLLC v. D&D Dev., Inc., NY Slip Op 08263 (1st Dep't November 14, 2019)

Here is the decision.

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk.

If the risks of a sporting activity are known by or perfectly obvious to a voluntary participant, he has consented to them and the defendant has discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be.  Inherent risks are those which are known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of participation in the sport. Participants are not deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks.

Calderone v. College, NY Slip Op 08160 (2d Dep't November 13, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3211(a)(7).

Speculative and inherently incredible allegations of widespread surveillance, conspiratorial meetings, and eavesdropping involving unidentified persons are insufficient to state a cause of action for employment discrimination, retaliation, harassment, or intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Mira v. Harder, NY Slip Op 08131 (1st Dep't November 12, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A landlord's liability for a dog bite.

To hold a landlord liable, the plaintiff must establish the landlord's knowledge of the dog's presence and its vicious propensities. Knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities may be established by proof of prior similar acts of which the defendant had notice.

Almodovar v. New York City Hous. Auth., NY Slip Op 08129 (1st Dep't November 12, 2019)

Here is the decision.