A movant's reply papers.

While the moving defendants should have submitted the security agreement as part of their moving papers, their submission of it in reply was proper, since it responded to an argument that the plaintiff made in opposition to the moving defendants' cross motion for summary judgment.

140 W. 57th St. Bldg. LLC v. Berrie, NY Slip Op 02935 (1st Dep't May 3,2022)

Here is the decision.

An agent's liability.

The agent for a disclosed principal will not be personally bound unless there is clear and explicit evidence of the agent's intention to substitute his liability for the principal's liability or to superadd his liability to the principal's liability.

Pruss v. AmTrust N. Am. Inc., NY Slip Op 02884 (1st Dep't April 28, 2022)

Here is the decision.

The statute of frauds.

A contract for the sale of real property must be evidenced by a writing which identifies the parties; describes the subject matter; is signed by the party to be charged; and states the essential terms of the agreement. In a real estate transaction, the essential terms of a contract include the purchase price, the time and terms of payment, the required financing, the closing date, the quality of title to be conveyed, the risk of loss during the sale period, and adjustments for taxes and utilities. The writing must set forth the entire contract with reasonable certainty so that the substance thereof appears from the writing alone. If the contract is incomplete and it is necessary to resort to parol evidence to ascertain what was agreed to, the remedy of specific performance is not available.

Cohen v. Holder, NY Slip Op 02778 (2d Dep't April 27, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A cause of action for negligent hiring and retention.

The plaintiff must allege that the employer knew of its employee's harmful propensities, that it failed to take necessary action, and that this failure caused damage to others. The cause of action does not have to be pleaded with specificity.

Waterbury v. New York City Ballet, Inc., NY Slip Op 02890 (1st Dep't April 28, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Judiciary Law § 487.

The statute applies to an attorney acting in his capacity as an attorney, not to a party who is represented by counsel and who, incidentally, is an attorney. Under Judiciary Law § 487(1), an attorney who guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party is liable to the injured party for treble damages.

Altman v. DiPreta, NY Slip Op 02774 (2d Dep't April 27, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Objecting to discovery demands.

A party waives its right to object generally to the demands by failing to respond timely with the requisite particularity, pursuant to CPLR 3122[a][1].

Worldview Entertainment Holdings, Inc. v. Woodrow, NY Slip Op 02891 (1st Dep't April 28, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Confessions of judgment.

A person seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon the filing of an affidavit of confession of judgment must commence a separate plenary action.

Ace Funding Source, LLC v. St. Michael's Urgent Care of Hattiesburg, LLC, NY Slip Op 02773 (2d Dep't April 27, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Claims under the New York City Human Rights Law.

Claims under the New York City Human Rights Law must be analyzed separately and independently from claims under the federal and New York State Human Rights Laws, because of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes of the City's statute.

Russell v. New York Univ., NY Slip Op 02765 (1st Dep't April 26, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A Judiciary Law § 487 claim.

The claim is dismissed because the plaintiff does not allege the essential elements of a cause of action under the statute, namely, intentional deceit and damages proximately caused thereby. The plaintiff's conclusory allegations do not support a showing of the defendant's attorney's egregious conduct or a chronic and extreme pattern of behavior that caused damages to the plaintiff. The allegations do not amount to acts of deceit, as the attorney's statements, which consist mainly of simple advocacy, do not give rise to an inference that there was an intent to deceive.

Nehmadi v. Claude Castro & Assoc. PLLC, NY Slip Op 02629 (1st Dep't April 21, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Serving a notice of claim on a public corporation.

The time to serve the notice cannot be extended beyond the time limited for commencement of the action. Therefore, the court lacks authority to grant a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim made more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued, unless the statute of limitations has been tolled. CPLR 204(a) tolls the limitations period while a motion to serve a late notice of claim is pending. Where a court declines to sign an initial order to show cause for leave to serve a late notice of claim on procedural grounds, but a subsequent application is granted, the period of time in which the earlier application was pending is also excluded from the limitations period.

Ahmed v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., NY Slip Op 02521 (2d Dep't April 20, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

No appeal lies from an order entered on default, pursuant to CPLR 5511. However, the denial of the father's request for an adjournment on a hearing on his petition is appealable because that request was the subject of the underlying dispute.

Matter of Darlene H. v. Abdus R., NY Slip Op 02639 (1st Dep't April 21, 2022)

Here is the decision.