Answering papers on a summary judgment motion.

The non-movant is not required to address an issue that is not raised in the moving papers.

,Massillon v. Regalado, NY Slip Op 07717 (1st Dep't October 29, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 306-b.

If a plaintiff does not serve the summons and complaint within 120 days of commencement of the action, "the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service."  Good cause and interest of justice are two separate and independent standards. In order to establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service. The interest of justice is a broader standard meant to accommodate service that is late due to mistake, confusion or oversight, as long as there is no prejudice to the defendant. The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the parties' competing interests. Under the interest of justice standard, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of the plaintiff's request for an extension of time, and prejudice to the defendant.

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Wilson, NY Slip Op 07595 (2d Dep't October 23, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A claim of unjust enrichment.

To prevail on the cause of action, the plaintiff must establish that it conferred a benefit on the defendant, and that the defendant will retain that benefit without adequately compensating the plaintiff. In determining the viability of the claim, the essential inquiry is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what the plaintiff seeks to recover.

Beaman v. Awaye Realty Mgt., LLC, NY Slip Op 07562 (2d Dep't October 23, 2019)

Here is the decision.

General Obligations Law § 5-1401.

Where the parties' agreement falls within the ambit of the statute, New York will enforce the choice-of-law clause, regardless of whether there is a connection between the transaction and New York.

ABB, Inc. v. Havtech, LLC, NY Slip Op 07693 (1st Dep't October 24, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Where the record reflects that respondent consented to the order, it is not appealable since he is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511. Respondent's remedy, if any, is to move to vacate or resettle the order.

Matter of Jessica M. v. Julio G.R., NY Slip Op 07696 (1st Dep't October 24, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Traverse hearings.

Where there are conflicting affirmations, based on personal knowledge, on the issue of the proper service of the defendant's motion to strike the complaint. a traverse hearing is required.

US Bank NA v. Okeke, NY Slip Op 07687 (1st Dep't October 24, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Premises liability.

A tenant's common-law duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition is limited to those areas which it occupies and controls, or of which it makes a special use.

Arshinov v. Gr 10-40, LLC, NY Slip Op 07560 (2d Dep't October 23, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 4401.

Pursuant to the statute, a party may move for a directed verdict after the close of the opposing party's evidence. It is reversible error to grant a motion for a directed verdict prior to the close of the party's case against whom a directed verdict is sought, even if it is unlikely that the plaintiff will prevail. The denial of a fair trial claim is a stand-alone cause of action

Cromedy v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07527 (1st Dep't October 22, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal on the ground of CPLR 301.

A corporate defendant's registration to do business in New York and the designation of the Secretary of State to accept service of process does not constitute the corporation's consent to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation's affiliations with New York.

Fekah v. Baker Hughes Inc., NY Slip Op 07500 (1st Dep't October 17, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A petition to vacate an arbitration award.

In order to vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, the petitioner must show that the arbitration panel knew of a governing legal principle that was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable, and refused to apply it or ignored it altogether. A mistake of law does not constitute manifest disregard, and is not ground for vacatur.

Matter of McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., NY Slip Op 07498 (1st Dep't October 17, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3025(b).

A proposed amended complaint must clearly show the changes or additions between it and the previous complaint.

Cafe Lughnasa Inc. v. A&R Kalimian LLC, NY Slip Op 07496 (1st Dep't October 17, 2019)

Here is the decision.