A motion to confirm a referee's report.

The motion is properly denied, as the referee's determination is unsupported by the record, which contains documentary evidence that contradicts and renders incredible certain testimony offered by the defendants.

Toobian-Sani Enters., Inc. v. Bronfman Fisher Real Estate Holdings, LLC, NY Slip Op 02532 (1st Dep't April 30, 2020)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 302[a][3].

New York's long-arm jurisdiction statute does not serve as a basis for jurisdiction. In the context of commercial torts, where the damages are purely economic, the situs of the injury is the location where the event giving rise to the injury occurred, and not where the resulting damages occurred.

U.S. Immigration Fund LLC v. Litowitz, NY Slip Op 02533 (1st Dep't April 30.2020)

Here is the decision.

Denial of a motion for leave to renew.

A motion to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation. Here, the purported new facts were available to the defendant at the time he opposed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and he failed to demonstrate a reasonable justification for failing to submit them, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][3].  In any event, the purported new facts would not have changed the prior determination.

Ascentium Capital, LLC v. Empire Med. Servs. of Long Is., P.C., NY Slip Op 02450 (2d Dep't April 29, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Where an order, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint, that portion of the order is not appealable as of right. However, in the interest of deciding appeals on the merits, the Appellate Division may deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal, and grant leave.

BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP v. Moreno, NY Slip Op 02377 (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 5015[a][2].

Defendants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to relief from the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered before the entry of the judgment, as their submissions consisted of tax maps and floor plans that were publicly filed years before plaintiff moved for summary judgment.

P360 Spaces, LLC v. Orlando, NY Slip Op 02384 (1st Dep't April 23,2020)

Here is the decision.

A cause of action under General Business Law § 349.

The claim was dismissed, as the dispute concerns a pawnbroker transaction that was unique to the parties and involved one-of-a-kind collateral, rather than conduct that could affect consumers at large or have an impact on consumer transactions involving the same type of item.

Koblence v. Modern Pawn Brokers, Inc., NY Slip Op 02376 (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

A motion to vacate an arbitration award.

Vacatur on the ground of manifest disregard requires a finding that the arbitrators refused to apply or altogether ignored a governing legal principle of which they knew, and that the law so ignored was well-defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.

Matter of Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Finn, NY Slip Op 02371 (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

A municipality's liability.

A party seeking to impose liability on a municipality acting in a governmental capacity must establish the existence of a special duty to plaintiff, which is more than the duty owed to the public generally.

Musano v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 02368 (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Damages for emotional distress.

A plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress arising out of the intentional destruction of property.

Barrish v. Chiesa, NY Slip Op 02375 (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Employment discrimination claims.

There is a lenient notice pleading standard for employment discrimination cases. Here, the complaint states a cause of action for retaliation, as it alleges that plaintiff filed a discrimination complaint in December 2010; that defendant was notified of the complaint in November 2011; and that six months later plaintiff was charged with misconduct that allegedly had occurred more than a year earlier. However, the complaint fails to state causes of action for discrimination and hostile work environment, as it does not allege that defendants' actions occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. It does not allege facts that would establish that similarly situated persons who were male or who were not black were treated more favorably than plaintiff was  treated. Instead, the complaint merely asserts the legal conclusion that defendants' adverse employment actions and plaintiff's termination were due to race and gender. The hostile work environment cause of action fails for the additional reason that the handful of potentially insensitive comments made by her superior over the course of a few years do not rise to a level that is actionable under either the State or the City Human Rights Law.

Thomas v. Mintz,  NY Slip Op 02367 (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Legal malpractice.

Plaintiffs allege that they sustained damages when they relied on defendants' negligent advice that they could disclaim coverage of their insured in an underlying malpractice action. In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants properly rely on documentary evidence, including the challenged disclaimer letter and the relevant policy, since their authenticity is undisputed and their contents are essentially undeniable. The disclaimer letter sets forth an analysis of plaintiffs' right to refuse coverage on two independent bases. Dismissal is required because plaintiffs fail to plead with specificity or to argue that one of the two bases for defendants' advice was incorrect.

Lloyd's Syndicate 2987 v. Furman Kornfeld & Brennan, LLP,  (1st Dep't April 23, 2020)

Here is the decision.