Defamation.

The elements of a cause of action alleging defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se.  Since falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only facts are capable of being proven false, it follows that only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action.

Moonbeam Gateway Mar., LLC v. Tai Chan, NY Slip Op 03802 (2d Dep't June 25, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to reargue.

Even where a motion for reargument is untimely under CPLR 2221(d)(3), a court has discretion to reconsider its prior ruling.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Stern, NY Slip Op 03800 (2d Dep't June 25, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Temporary restraining orders.

A temporary restraining order will not issue where the alleged injury is fully compensable in money damages.

Arena Ltd. SPV, LLC v. Chalets, LLC, NY Slip Op 03759 (1st Dep't June 24, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Indemnification.

The right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the contract. 

Collado v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (2d Dep't June 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

The law of the case.

The law of the case doctrine applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decision and to the same questions presented in the same case.

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Bruno, NY Slip Op 03706 (2d Dep't June 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

A simple breach of contract may not be considered a tort absent the violation of a legal duty independent of the contract itself. Where the alleged damages were clearly within the contemplation of the written agreement, merely charging a breach of a duty of due care, employing the language of tort law, does not transform a simple breach of contract into a tort claim.

E.W. Howell Co., LLC v. Control Point Assoc., Inc., NY Slip 03708 (2d Dep't June 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

A bank's liability.

As a general rule, banks do not owe non-customers a duty to protect them from the intentional torts of their customers.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Canova, NY Slip Op 03719 (2d Dep't June 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Corporate law.

The general rule is that a corporation which acquires the assets of another is not liable for the torts of its predecessor. An exception to the rule is the de facto merger doctrine in which the corporation is shorn of its assets and becomes, in essence, a shell.  Legal dissolution is not necessary in order to invoke the doctrine.

One River Run Acquisition, LLC v. Milde, NY Slip Op 03653 (1st Dep't June 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Negligence actions.

In a negligence action, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries. The plaintiff does not have the burden of establishing the absence of his own comparative negligence. However, the issue of the plaintiff's comparative negligence may be decided on summary judgment where the plaintiff seeks dismissal of an affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence.

Jean-Pierre v. Wang Chiang Ho, NY Slip Op 03709 (2d Dep't June 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

The affirmative defenses of waiver and equitable estoppel.

Mere silence or oversight does not constitute the requisite clear manifestation of an intent to relinquish a known right. The waiver defense is dismissed. The estoppel defense also is dismissed as there was an express contract governing the matter.

Board of Mgrs. of the Alfred Condominium v. Miller, NY Slip Op 03647 (1st Dep't June 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

A referee's report.

The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility. The referee's findings and recommendations are advisory only and have no binding effect on the court, which remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute.

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB. v. Blick, NY Slip Op 03601 (2d Dep't June 11, 2025)

Here is the decision.