An untimely notice of claim.

The notice of claim, filed without leave of court, is a nullity.

Umeh v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 03358 (1st Dep't May 24, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

The applicant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint or summons and notice, proof of the facts constituting the cause of action, and proof of the defaulting defendant's failure to answer or appear, pursuant to CPLR 3215[f]. In order to demonstrate the facts constituting the cause of action, the plaintiff need only submit sufficient proof to enable a court to determine if the cause of action is viable, since defaulters are deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them.

Banks v. 110-18 198th St. Corp., NY Slip Op 03222 (2d Dep't May 18, 2022)

Here is the decision

CPLR 2309(c) and 2001.

In deciding defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, the motion court properly considered defendant's sworn affidavit attaching the contract at issue, even though it lacked the required certificate of conformity. The absence of such a certificate is a mere irregularity and not a fatal defect. The motion court properly disregarded the irregularity because plaintiff does not allege that it prejudiced her.

Sebrow v. Sebrow, NY Slip Op 03337 (1st Dep't May 19, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The evidentiary rulings challenged by defendant are the functional equivalent of rulings on a partial summary judgment motion determining the scope of issues to be tried, and thus involve the merits of the dispute. As a result, the rulings affect a substantial right and are directly appealable before any trial order or judgment.

Shyer v. Shyer, NY Slip Op 03338 (1st Dep't May 19, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A legal malpractice action.

Plaintiff claims that defendants negligently failed to advise it that an amendment to a commercial lease would extinguish its purchase option upon sale of the premises, and that, but for defendants' negligence, it would not have signed the amendment but would have exercised its purchase option as of right between 2023 and 2024, acquiring the premises for no more than $11.4 million. It is undisputed that after the amendment was executed, the landlord received a bona fide third-party purchase offer and plaintiff exercised its right of first refusal, purchasing the premises in 2016 for $14.5 million.

Defendants motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim is denied. Defendants' email attaching a marked-up copy of the relevant lease section does not establish, as a matter of law, that defendants advised plaintiff as to the meaning of the amendment, and the parties dispute the oral advice that was provided by defendants. The fact that plaintiff's agent read the amendment does not establish, as a matter of law, that defendants were not negligent. Any evidence that plaintiff's agent, a sophisticated businessman, knew or should have known that the amendment was substantive despite defendants' advice that it was "housekeeping" does not disprove defendants' negligence. It is evidence that can be offered in mitigation of damages.

Alrose Steinway, LLC v. Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP, NY Slip Op 03310 (1st Dep't May 19, 2022)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 501.

 "A written agreement fixing place of trial, made before an action is commenced, shall be enforced upon a motion for change of place of trial." Based on the express statutory language, the enforcement of a contractual venue selection clause may not be raised sua sponte, but must be raised by motion or otherwise settled on consent of the parties.

Allen v. Morningside Acquisition I, LLC, NY Slip Op 03219 (2d Dep't May 18, 2022)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3101(a).

The statute directs that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." However, a party is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, and unfettered disclosure. Since a party does not waive the physician-patient privilege with respect to unrelated illnesses or injuries, the defendant was not entitled to authorizations for the release of the injured plaintiff's medical records pertaining to a prior automobile accident and stroke. The defendant did not show that the injuries and illness were related to the accident at issue, and so the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating that those records were relevant to the issues in controversy, and material and necessary to the defense of this action. 

Fitzpatrick v. Consolidated Resistance Co. of Am., Inc., NY Slip Op 03097 (2d Dep't May 11, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A time-barred Article 78 petition.

The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the petition brought to expunge the May 6, 2019 disciplinary letter from petitioner's personnel file. As the four-month statute of limitations began to run when the letter was placed in petitioner's file, and this proceeding was not commenced until January 13, 2021, the court should not have considered the letter.

Matter of Connors v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 03209 (1st Dep't May 17, 2022)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 5001.

The motion court properly awarded statutory interest on the amount owed by the LLC defendants. The fact that the borrower must pay contractual interest on the underlying loan does not preclude the court's imposition of statutory interest on the amount that the LLC defendants owe under separately executed guaranties.

Talos Capital Designated Activity Co. v. 257 Church Holdings LLC, NY Slip Op 03186 (1st Dep't May 12, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Constructive notice of a hazardous condition.

A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident so as to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it. To meet its burden on the issue of constructive notice, the defendant must offer evidence as to when the accident site was last inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell.

 Ferrer v. 120 Union Ave., LLC, NY Slip Op 03096 (2d Dep't May 11 2022)

Here is the decision.