Where the express terms of a contract allow one party to terminate it in "its sole discretion" or "for any reason whatsoever," the covenant cannot serve to negate that provision.
Vendome v. Oldenburg, NY Slip Op 05409 (1st Dep't October 7, 2021)
Where the express terms of a contract allow one party to terminate it in "its sole discretion" or "for any reason whatsoever," the covenant cannot serve to negate that provision.
Vendome v. Oldenburg, NY Slip Op 05409 (1st Dep't October 7, 2021)
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a fiduciary relationship, misconduct by the defendant, and damages that were directly caused by the defendant's misconduct.
Glaubach v. Slifkin, NY Slip Op 05322 (2d Dep't October 6, 2021)
In order to prevail on a motion to vacate an order awarding summary judgment in a foreclosure action, the proponent must establish that the opponent procured the order by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. Broad, conclusory, and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud are insufficient.
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Le-Mond, NY Slip Op 05319 (2d Dep't October 6, 2021)
The defendant waived his right to object to the admission of the records as business records, as he failed to timely object after having been served with the plaintiff's notice of her intention to enter the documents into evidence, pursuant to CPLR 3122-a. The testimony of the office manager laid a proper foundation for the admission of the records, pursuant to CPLR 4518[a].
Benguigui v. Racer, NY Slip Op 05318 (2d Dep't October 6, 2021)
The Appellate Division affirmed, with costs, the order that granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff applied for a job at the defendants' restaurant, and was offered paid training sessions in contemplation of potential employment. The plaintiff alleges that she was wrongfully discharged when the defendants cancelled the training sessions. It is well-settled in New York that there is no cause of action for an at-will employee's wrongful discharge unless the termination of employment is constitutionally impermissible or statutorily proscribed, or unless there is an express limitation in an employment contract. Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was, at best, an at-will employee and that her employment was not impermissibly terminated. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Babalola v. Terry Vegetarian, LLC, NY Slip Op 05317 (2d Dep't October 6, 2021)
Records which are attorney work product are specifically protected from disclosure. The records cannot be redacted under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), which permits redactions of records only under the personal privacy exemption.
The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of this action. Although the plaintiff contends that the $230,000 payment she made to defendants five years before the action was commenced should not be considered a tithe, the record shows that the payment was, in fact, a tithe, and that plaintiff made it voluntarily. The $230,000 check made out to the defendant stated "tithe" in the memo section. The issues of the plaintiff's motivation for tithing and the proper amount of the tithe necessarily implicate the interpretation of religious doctrine ,and cannot be resolved through the application of neutral principles of law.
Wilson v. Christ Alive Christian Ctr., NY Slip Op 05315 (1st Dep't October 5, 2021)
The plaintiff must show (1) legal ownership or an immediate right of possession to tangible personal property or specific money, and (2) that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over the thing in question to the exclusion of the plaintiff's right. There is conversion when funds designated for a particular purpose are used for an unauthorized purpose.
Alpha/Omega Concrete Corp. v. Ovation Risk Planners, Inc., NY Slip Op 05113 (2d Dep't September 29, 2021)
The appeal from the order which granted plaintiff's motion to proceed pseudonymously was dismissed. The death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to conduct proceedings in an action until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a). While the parties need not renew their motions, proper substitution of a defendant must be made before the motion is decided. Since the order was issued after a defendant's death and without proper substitution, the Appellate Division does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.
Thomas v. Rubin, NY Slip Op 05112 (1st Dep't September 28, 2021)
The defendant's opposition to the plaintiffs summary judgment motion was due to be served no later than seven days prior to the return date, but the defendant served his opposition six days after the return date. The Appellate Division determined that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to consider the defendant's opposition, as the defendant failed to provide a valid excuse for the late service.
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. McEnery, NY Slip Op 05023 (2d Dep't September 22, 2021)