Common-law indemnification.

Common-law indemnification is not available unless the petitioner has been held to be vicariously liable without proof of any negligence or actual supervision on its own part.

176 W. 87th St. Owners Corp. v. Guercio, NY Slip Op 02277 (1st Dep't May 2, 2023)

Here is the decision.

The continuing violation doctrine.

The doctrine does not apply to plaintiff's claims for disability discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws because the complaint does not allege facts comprising a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct, but, instead, alleges discrete events, involving different actors.

Lasher v. New York City Dept. of Educ., NY Slip Op 02179 (1st Dep't April 27, 2023)

Here is the decision.

A petition to vacate an arbitration award.

The parties' arbitration agreement provided that judicial review of an award would be pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act, at 9 USC §§ 9, 10. The grounds for vacatur at 9 USC § 10(a) are analogous to those specified in CPLR 7511(b)(1). The award addressed each of petitioner's substantive claims and undermines petitioner's arguments that the award reflected a manifest disregard of the law. There is nothing in the record to support petitioner's allegations that the presentment of her case was prejudiced by the arbitrator's decisions regarding discovery and procedure. There is no evidence to support petitioner's claim that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in rendering the award, as the arbitrator enforced the rules and procedures in the arbitration agreement and answered the claims as framed by the parties. By participating in the arbitration, petitioner waived her claim that the arbitrator was biased, and, in any event, the claim is based on speculation that is unsupported by objective facts inconsistent with impartiality. The petition is denied.

Matter of Pezhman v. Bloomingdales, Inc., NY Slip Op 02196 (1st Dep't April 27, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment in a premises liability action.

The defendant-movant has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it. The defendant also may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his injury without engaging in speculation.

Bayer v. Savan Hospitality Corp., NY Slip Op 02096 (2d Dep't April 26, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Attorney-client privilege.

The fact that a privileged communication may contain information that is relevant to the issues being litigated does not, in and of itself, put the contents of the communication at issue, so as to constitute a waiver of the privilege.

Talos Capital Designated Activity Co. v. 257 Church Holdings LLC, NY Slip Op 02196 (1st Dep't April 27, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Successive motions.

Successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause. In order to be deemed newly discovered, the evidence that was not submitted in support of the previous motion must be used to establish facts that were not available to the movant at the time of the original submission and which could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means.

313 43rd St. Realty, LLC v. TMS Enters., LP, NY Slip Op 02094 (2d Dep't April 26, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Time-bar in a mortgage foreclosure action.

Plaintiff's predecessor failed to mail defendant a notice of default in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement, a condition precedent to accelerating the debt. Because that purported acceleration was a nullity, the statute of limitations never accrued and, therefore, the present foreclosure action, commenced after the proper mailing of a default notice, was timely. Given the timeliness of the foreclosure action, defendant's action to quiet title cannot be maintained.

1900 Capital Trust III v Guaman, NY Slip Op 02075 (1st Dep't April 25, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

The court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the plaintiff fails to properly serve process, and any subsequent proceedings are null and void. A process server's affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service, and gives rise to a presumption of proper service.  In order to vacate a default judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(4), the defendant must overcome the presumption raised by the process server's affidavit. Although bare and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service, a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the affidavit of service and necessitates a hearing.

Here, the defendant offered no specific facts or documentary or other evidence demonstrating that he did not reside at the address where service was effected. Therefore, his affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service established by the affidavit of service. 

Deutsche Natl. Bank Trust Co. v. Williams, NY Slip Op 01982 (2d Dep't April 19, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal on the ground of documentary evidence.

A motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing, as matter of law, a defense to the action.

Buchanan v. Law Offs. of Sheldon E. Green, P.C., NY Slip Op 01979 (2d Dep't April 19, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Waiver of arbitration.

Defendant waived its contractual right to arbitrate the dispute by participating in the litigation over an 18-month period, during which defendant requested an extension of time to answer the complaint, filed an answer, appeared at a preliminary conference, and agreed to a discovery schedule.

Hoffman v. AKT in Motion, Inc., NY Slip Op 02062 (1st Dep't April 20, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Failure to state a cause of action.

On a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7),  the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. The test of the sufficiency of the complaint is whether it gives sufficient notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences intended to be proved and whether the requisite elements of any cause of action known to our law can be discerned from its averments. Whether the plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not a part of the calculus, and any deficiencies in the complaint may be amplified by supplemental pleadings and other evidence.

Cabrera v. Rallye Motors, LLC, NY Slip Op 01885 (2d Dep't April 12, 2023)

Here is the decision.