A vehicle accident and a negligence claim.

The Appellate Division reversed the motion court and reinstated the complaint in this action where the defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff's violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 was the sole proximate cause of the accident. In support of the motion, the defendant submitted the parties' deposition testimony. The defendant attested that she never saw the front of the plaintiff's vehicle, and that when she first saw the plaintiff's vehicle, which was "moving like a snail," she saw the middle part of the vehicle directly ahead of her. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant plaintiff, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, her freedom from comparative fault and that the plaintiff's alleged violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Practice point:  A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the accident.

Case:  Aponte v. Vani, NY Slip Op 08252 (2d Dep't November 22, 2017)

Here is the decision.

A dismissed breach of contract claim.

The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal because defendant cannot establish the elements of either breach or damages. Defendant does not allege that the contract required plaintiff to employ any particular security measures, so plaintiff was required only to exercise precautions consistent with industry standards. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit from an experienced industry professional, who opined that the measures it took, namely, keeping the molds in a locked storage room supervised by an on-site employee, were "standard in the industry." The affidavit submitted by defendant in opposition did not set forth any different standard, and, therefore, failed to raise an issue of fact.

Regarding damages, defendant's representative admitted that he was "not aware of any particular instances of sales of jewelry pieces manufactured from the counterfeit models."

Practice point:  Defendant's theory that the jewelry styles corresponding to the counterfeited models failed to meet projected sales is unduly speculative.

Case:  Apogee Handcraft, Inc. v. Verragio, Ltd., NY Slip Op 08178 (1st Dep't November 21, 2017)

Here is the decision. 

Promissory notes and contract law.

Practice point:   Where there is a valid contract, a plaintiff cannot recover in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter.

Student note:  A promissory note is enforceable under the traditional principles of contract law.

Case:  Amrusi v. Nwaukoni, NY Slip Op 07970 (2d Dep't November 16, 2017)

Here is the decision.

A Labor Law claim for work performed out-of-State.

Labor Law, Article 6, which contains the unlawful deductions, notice, and record keeping provisions which plaintiffs claim were violated, does not indicate that the provisions were intended to apply when the work in question is performed outside the state. Article 19, which contains the minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours provisions identified in the complaint, includes a "Statement of Public Policy," which states, in relevant part: "There are persons employed in some occupations in the state of New York at wages insufficient to provide adequate maintenance for themselves and their families.... Employment of persons at these insufficient rates of pay threatens the health and well-being of the people of this state and injures the overall economy."

As these statutes do not expressly apply on an extraterritorial basis, plaintiffs' claims under these provisions, based on labor performed outside New York, do not state a cause of action under Article 6 or Article 19 of the New York Labor Law.

Practice point:  Under New York Law, no legislation is presumed to be intended to operate outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state enacting it, unless expressly stated otherwise.

Case:  Rodriguez v. KGA Inc., NY Slip Op 07948 (1st Dep't November 14, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Strict products liability.

Practice point: In order to establish a prima facie case based on design defects, the plaintiff must show that the manufacturer or seller breached its duty to market safe products by marketing a product designed so that it was not reasonably safe, and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury. In order to determine whether a product was designed so that it was not reasonably safe, the risks inherent in the product must be balanced against the product's utility and cost. A court will consider factors such as the utility of the product to the public and to the individual user; the likelihood that it will cause injury; the availability of a safer design; the potential for designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced; the ability of the plaintiff to have avoided injury by careful use of the product; the degree of awareness of the potential danger of the product which reasonably can be attributed to the plaintiff; and the manufacturer's ability to spread any cost related to improving the safety of the design. With regard to the misuse of a product, it may be determined that even with adequate warnings, a product may be so dangerous, and its misuse may be so foreseeable, that the utility of the product does not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing it.

Case:  M.H. v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., NY Slip Op 07790 (1st Dep't November 9, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Court holiday.

A dismissed legal malpractice claim.

In this action commenced by plaintiffs against defendants based on defendants' representation of plaintiffs in an underlying federal court action, dismissal of the legal malpractice claim was affirmed since the claim rested on retrospective complaints about the outcome of defendants' strategic choices and tactics, without any facts cited to support a claim that the choices were unreasonable. The breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims were reinstated, as they are based on billing issues and are not duplicative of the claims regarding the alleged mishandling of the trial.

Practice point:  The firm's failure to anticipate the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding the expert report does not establish negligence.

Case:  Brenner v. Reiss Eisenpress, LLP, NY Slip Op 07781 (1st Dep't November 9, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Doctrine of primary assumption of risk.

Practice point:  Under the doctrine, by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from participation.  By freely assuming a known risk, a plaintiff negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard the plaintiff from the risk.  If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, the plaintiff has consented to them and the defendant has performed its duty. However, a plaintiff will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks.

Case:  Hanson v. Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., NY Slip Op 07711 (2d Dep't November 8, 2017)

Here is the decision.

A motion to set aside a verdict.

Practice point:  Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court may set aside a verdict and direct that judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or it may order a new trial where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence or in the interest of justice.  A motion to set aside a verdict in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise. In considering the motion, the trial judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done and whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected. In addition, the judge must look to common sense, experience, and a sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision.

Case:  Duran v. Temple Beth Sholom, Inc., NY Slip Op 07708 (2d Dep't November 8, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a judgment resulting from fraud.

Practice point:  A party who has lost an action as a result of alleged fraud or false testimony cannot collaterally attack the judgment in a separate action against the party who adduced the false evidence. Instead, the plaintiff's sole remedy is a motion to vacate the judgment.  In an exception to the rule, a party may commence a separate action where the alleged perjury or fraud in the underlying action was merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme which was greater in scope than the issues determined in the prior proceeding.

Case:  DeMartino v. Lomonaco, NY Slip Op 07706 (2d Dep't November 8, 2017)

Here is the decision.

A dismissed quantum meruit claim.

The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal, finding no triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff could have expected compensation from defendants for its services, as the brokerage agreement states otherwise.

Practice point:  Plaintiff presented no evidence of any other express or implied agreement between the parties to show that plaintiff had an expectation of compensation by defendants for her services.

Case:  SPRE Realty, Ltd. v. Dienst, NY Slip Op 07775 (1st Dep't November 9, 2017)

Here is the decision.