Routine physical examinations or visits concerning matters unrelated to the condition giving rise to the malpractice claim do not implicate the doctrine so as to toll the statutory limitations period.
Pinkney v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 03421 (1st Dep't June 22, 2023)
Where a cause of action is preempted by federal law, a party may move pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the cause of action on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Preemption can occur in any one of three ways: where Congress has expressly preempted state law; where Congress has legislated so comprehensively that federal law occupies an entire field of regulation and leaves no room for state law; and where federal law conflicts with state law.
Astro Ready Mix, LLC v. MTA Long Is. R.R., NY Slip Op 03324 (2d Dep't June 21, 2023)
As a general rule, the Appellate Division does not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that could have been raised on an earlier appeal that was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although it has the inherent jurisdiction to do so,
Alisa Auto Serv., Inc. v. Chernetskyy, NY Slip Op 03323 (2d Dep't June 21, 2023)
Ordinarily, a party who seeks affirmative relief should file a formal notice of motion or cross-motion, pursuant to CPLR 2215. However, courts have the discretion, in the interest of justice, to entertain a request for affirmative relief that is made in the opposition papers to a motion.
Trevino v. Pray, NY Slip Op 03426 (1st Dep't June 22, 2023)
A law firm's right to enforce a charging lien under Judiciary Law § 475 is not forfeited in a case where the firm's representation is discontinued by mutual consent for reasons not rising to the level of misconduct or just cause.
Upfront Megatainment, Inc. v. Thiam, NY Slip Op 03428 (1st Dep't June 22, 2023)
The claims will be dismissed as facially insufficient where the plaintiff does not plead the requisite elements of the defendant's knowledge of its business relationships and/or contracts with third parties.
Karl Reeves, C.E.I.N.Y. Corp. v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., NY Slip Op 03315 (1st Dep't June 20, 2023)
The fundamental precept of contract interpretation is that agreements are construed in accord with the parties' intent, and the best evidence of the parties' intention is what they say in their writing. Therefore, a written agreement that, on its face, is complete, clear, and unambiguous must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms. The threshold issues of whether a contract is unambiguous, and the subsequent construction and interpretation of an unambiguous contract, are for the court to decide.
249-251 Brighton Beach Ave., LLC v. 249 Brighton Corp., NY Slip Op 03321 (2d Dep't June 21, 2023)
The carrier's duty to defend arises whenever the allegations in the complaint state a cause of action that gives rise to the reasonable possibility of recovery under the policy. If any of the claims against an insured arguably arise from a covered event, the insurer is required to defend the entire action. There is a duty defend if the allegations of the complaint are even potentially within the language of the insurance policy.
1416 Coney Is. Realty, LLC v. Wesco Ins. Co., NY Slip Op 03320 (2d Dep't June 21, 2023)
A contract that assumes an obligation to indemnify must be strictly construed, and the court will not read into the agreement a specific obligation where none is plainly stated.
Tavarez v LIC Dev. Owner L.P., NY Slip Op 03318 (1st Dep't June 20 2023)
