A claim for tortious interference with contract.

The cause of action requires the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party, defendant's knowledge of that contract, defendant's intentional procurement, without justification, of the third-party's breach of the contract, actual breach of the contract, and damages resulting therefrom, New York law also recognizes the tort of interference with prospective contracts.

MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. Axos Bank, NY Slip Op 04414 (1st Dep't July 15, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  CPLR 3211(a)(7).

A claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.

No fraud action may be maintained against a defendant for an alleged misrepresentations made by the defendant to a third party where the third party did not communicate any negative information to the plaintiff. 

Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 28, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., NY Slip Op 04413 (1st Dep't July 15, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A claim for tortious interference with contract.

CPLR 5015(a)(3).

On a motion to vacate a default based on intrinsic fraud, that is, on the basis that the allegations in the complaint are false, the defendant must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Multani, NY Slip Op 04346 (2d Dep't July 14, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Contract law and lost profits.

Lost profits may be either general or consequential damages, depending on whether the non-breaching party bargained for the profits and they are the direct and immediate fruits of the contract at issue. Lost profits qualify as general or direct damages when they are the natural and probable consequence of the breach. Lost profits are consequential damages when, as a result of the breach, the non-breaching party suffers loss of profits on collateral business arrangements.

MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. Axos Bank, NY Slip Op 04414 (1st Dep't July 15, 2021)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3025[b].

Absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, an application to amend or supplement a pleading is to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. The party opposing the motion has the burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.

Oppedisano v. D'Agistino, NY Slip Op 04223 (2d Dep't July 7, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Contract law and lost profits.

General Municipal Law § 50-e[5].

In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim as timely, nunc pro tunc, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense, and whether the claimant demonstrates a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice.  The lack of a reasonable excuse is not dispositive where, as here, there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice.

Matter of Duke v. Westchester Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 04223 (2d Dep't July 7, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  CPLR 3025[b].

The doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Under the doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue that was clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the court or the causes of action are the same. The doctrine applies if the issue in the second action or proceeding is identical to a material issue which was raised and necessarily decided in the first action or proceeding, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action or proceeding. Here, in a prior action, neither the Appellate Division nor the Supreme Court decided the issue raised in this proceeding, namely, whether the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals acted arbitrarily or capriciously in rendering its determinations regarding the issuance of certain building permits. Consequently, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not preclude the petitioner from raising that issue in this proceeding.

Matter of Arcamone-Makinano v. Perlmutter, NY Slip Op 04222 (2d Dep't July 7, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  General Municipal Law § 50-e[5].

Real property and the duty of care.

While a possessor of real property has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably 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.

Morrissette v. Kismat Indian Rest., Inc., NY Slip Op 04220 (2d Dep't July 7, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The doctrine of collateral estoppel.

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk.

Under the doctrine, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity consents to those commonly appreciated risks that are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from the participation. Inherent risks in a sporting activity are those which are known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of participation, including risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it. It is not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which the injury occurred, so long as the plaintiff is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results. When a plaintiff assumes the risk of participating in a sporting event, the defendant is relieved of legal duty to the plaintiff; and being under no duty, the defendant cannot be charged with negligence.

Goulet v. Pier 2 Roller Ring at Brooklyn Bridge Park, NY Slip Op 04216 (2d Dep't July 7 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Real property and the duty of care.

Election of remedies.

Where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract, the plaintiff need not elect its remedies and may proceed upon theories of unjust enrichment or quasi-contract.

Emby Hosiery Corp. v. Tawil, NY Slip Op 04214 (2d Dep't July 7, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The doctrine of primary assumption of risk.

CPLR 213[4].

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Where the mortgage is payable in installments, a separate cause of action accrues for each unpaid installment, and the limitations period begins to run on the due-date of each installment. However, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due, and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire debt. Acceleration of a mortgage debt requires an unequivocal overt act, such as the commencement of a foreclosure action which specifically invokes that relief. However, where the acceleration occurred by virtue of the filing of a complaint, the noteholder's voluntary discontinuance of that action constitutes, as a matter of law, an affirmative act of revocation of the acceleration, absent an express, contemporaneous statement to the contrary by the noteholder. 

Citibank, N.A. v. Kletzky, NY Slip Op 04213 (2d Dep't July 7, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Election of remedies.