Source: http://drdiekman.blogspot.com/2017/03/
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 03:55:50
Document Index: 699266199

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 437', '§ 437', '§ 237']

New York Law Notes: March 2017
The General Obligations Law provides, in pertinent part, that an agreement is void if it is not in writing and "subscribed by the party to be charged therewith" (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a]) when the agreement "[i]s a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating . . . a business opportunity" (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][10]). The memorandum necessary to satisfy the statute of frauds may be pieced together out of separate writings, connected with one another either expressly or by the internal evidence of subject matter and occasion. An unsigned writing may be read together with the signed writings, provided that they clearly refer to the same subject matter or transaction.
Part performance does not take the matter out of the statute of frauds. The exception to the statute of frauds for part performance has not been extended to General Obligations Law § 5-701.
Case: Kelly v. P & G Ventures 1, LLC, NY Slip Op 02026 (2d Dep't March 22, 2017)
Monday's issue: Judicial review of a prenuptial agreement.
Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in not imputing to the father as income the $500 per month he was earning from his part-time employment in 2012 solely on the basis of Family Ct Act § 437-a, which bars the Family Court from requiring a recipient of social security disability benefits to engage in certain employment related activities. That statute is not dispositive in this case where the father had been employed during the pendency of his social security disability benefits application and did not show that he was unable to continue to be employed in any capacity after he began receiving benefits. The matter was remanded for a new determination as to the amount of child support, including a new determination as to whether the $500 per month should be imputed to the father.
Case: Matter of Anthony S. v. Monique T.B., NY Slip Op 02365 (1st Dep't March 28, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: Statute of frauds.
Practice point: Once a contract is formed, the parties may change their agreement by another agreement, by course of performance, or by conduct amounting to a waiver or estoppel. So, contractual rights may be waived if they are knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally abandoned, and abandonment may be established by affirmative conduct or by failure to act so as to evince an intent not to claim a purported advantage.
As the intentional relinquishment of a known right, a waiver is not lightly presumed, and mere negligence, oversight or thoughtlessness does not create a waiver. Similarly, a party's reluctance to terminate a contract upon a breach and its attempts to encourage the breaching party to adhere to its obligations under the contract do not necessarily constitute a waiver of the innocent party's rights in the future.
However, a waiver may be proved by undisputed acts or language so inconsistent with the party's purpose to stand upon his or her rights as to leave no opportunity for a reasonable inference to the contrary. Case: Kamco Supply Corp. v. On the Right Track, LLC, NY Slip Op 02025 (2d Dep't March 22, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: Family Ct Act § 437-a.
Practice point: The motion will not be defeated when the nonmovant offers only speculation that further discovery may yield evidence that raises a triable issue.
Case: Stein v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 02131 (1st Dep't March 23, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: The law of waiver and estoppel.
Practice point: The right of direct appeal from an intermediate order is terminated with the entry of judgment in the action.
Case: Qin Jun Ying v. May Flower Intl., Inc., NY Slip Op 01899 (2d Dep't March 15, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment and discovery.
Practice point: Compliance with a statutory notice requirement is a condition precedent to maintaining a summary eviction proceeding, and the landlord has the burden to prove that element of its case. A tenant may timely raised the objection in the answer and again in across motion for summary judgment despite not having raised it in the preanswer motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211[e].
Case: Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Glazer, NY Slip Op 01963 (1st Dep't March 16, 2017)
Monday's issue: An appeal from an intermediate order.
Practice point: The conspiracy to commit a tort is not, of itself, a cause of action, and such an action is time-barred when the substantive tort underlying it is time-barred.
Case: Loren v. Church St. Apt. Corp., NY Slip Op 01964 (1st Dep't March 16, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: Notice in an eviction proceeding.
Snow, ice, and an out-of-possession landlord's liability.
Practice point: Snow or ice is not a significant structural or design defect for which an out-of-possession landlord may be held liable.
Case: Cepeda v. KRF Realty LLC, NY Slip Op 01961 (1st Dep't March 16, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: A claim of conspiracy to commit a tort.
Practice point: A clerk does not have authority to enter a clerk's judgment against a defendant pursuant CPLR 3215(a) if the plaintiff's causes of action are not for a sum certain.
Case: Primary Care Ambulance Corp. v. Simpson, NY Slip Op 01898 (2d Dep't March 15, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: Snow, ice, and an out-of-possession landlord's liability.
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants' summary judgment motion in this action where plaintiff was injured when she fell while ascending the stairs in defendants' restaurant. Plaintiff testified that as she attempted to move her foot to the next step, it came in contact with the front lip of the second step. Contrary to defendants' assertion, plaintiff also testified that she had to bend down to grab the handrail, which was low. This evidence, as well as the affidavit of plaintiffs' expert engineer, who opined that the low positioning of the handrails and the higher position of the step risers were in violation of various New York City Building Codes, sufficiently raised triable issues as to whether the riser height of the stairs and low handrail were proximate causes of plaintiff's injuries.
Case: Murray v. Villa Barone Ristorante, Inc., NY Slip Op 01783 (1st Dep't March 9, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: The improper entry of a clerk's judgment.
Practice point: In determining whether to award attorneys' fees, a court will review the financial circumstances of both parties, together with all of the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of
the parties' positions. An award pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a) is warranted where there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties. Case: Bagielto v. Kolsch, NY Slip Op 01666 (2d Dep't March 8, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: A claim of discrimination based on national origin.
Practice point: As the legislature has not the extended the presumption
of causation to all disabilities subsequently developed by responders to the September attacks, a Court must limit the presumption's applicability to the scope the
legislature has provided for it.
Case: Matter of Stavropoulos v. Bratton, NY Slip Op 01779 (1st Dep't March 9, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: Attorneys' fees in a matrimonial action.
All courts in New York City, including SDNY and EDNY, are closed.
An insufficient claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Practice point: Plaintiff's factual allegation that defendant made false statements to the police, causing her arrest and incarceration, was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute the extreme and outrageous behavior necessary to sustain the claim.
Case: Matthaus v. Hadjedj, NY Slip Op 01636 (1st Dep't March 2, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: September 11 and the presumption of causation.
The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment and dismissal in this action where plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk in front of defendant's home. Defendant, as a single family homeowner, could only be liable for the alleged half-inch height differential where the two sidewalk flagstones met in front of her house if she created or exacerbated the alleged hazardous condition. There was no evidence in the record to indicate that defendant created the height differential. Plaintiff, at most, alleged that tar applied by defendant's husband in the joints between the sidewalk flagstones had somehow obstructed her vision of the alleged height differential. She never claimed to have tripped over the caulking that was only applied in the joint space between the sidewalk flagstones, and her assertion that the caulking had obstructed her view of the height differential in the flagstones was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.
Case: Napoli v. Di Marco, NY Slip Op 01633 (1st Dep't March 2, 2017)
Monday's issue: An insufficient claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Practice point: A result is shocking to the court's sense of fairness if the sanction imposed is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally visited or threatened by the derelictions of the individuals. Additional factors would be the prospect of deterrence of the individual or of others in similar situations, and, therefore, a reasonable prospect of recurrence of derelictions by the individual or persons similarly employed. There is also the element that the sanctions reflect the standards of society to be applied to the offense involved.
Case: Matter of Beatty v. City of New York,, NY Slip 01628 (1st Dep't March 2, 2017)
Practice point: Pursuant to CPLR 3408(f), the parties at a mandatory foreclosure settlement conference are required to negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. The purpose of the good faith requirement is to ensure that both plaintiff and defendant are prepared to participate in a meaningful effort. Compliance with the good faith requirement is measured by the totality of the circumstances and whether the party's conduct demonstrates a meaningful effort to reach a resolution.
Case: Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Diakite, NY Slip Op 01528 (2d Dep't March 1, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: The standard for an employment termination that shocks the conscience.
Practice point: A landowner has a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. In determining the extent of that duty, the court must take into account circumstances including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk. In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of an allegedly defective condition upon property, it must be established that the landowner affirmatively created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence. A defendant is deemed to have had constructive notice of a defect when (1) the defect was visible and apparent, and (2) it existed long enough for the defendant to have discovered and remedied it before the plaintiff was injured. When a defect is latent and would not be discoverable upon a reasonable inspection, constructive notice may not be imputed. In moving for summary judgment on the ground that the alleged defect was latent, a defendant must establish, prima facie, that the defect was not visible or apparent and would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection, and that he or she did not affirmatively create the defect and did not have actual notice of it.
Case: Arevalo v. Abitabile, NY Slip Op 01526 (2d Dep't March 2, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: A foreclosure settlement conference.
Practice point: The court may grant a motion to vacate a default on grounds of excusable default and a showing of a meritorious defense, if the motion is made within one year after service of the order entered on default, with written notice of its entry, pursuant to CPLR 5015[a][1].
Case: Marston v. Cole, NY Slip Op 01489 (1st Dep't February 28, 2017)
Monday's issue: Motions to vacate. Posted by
Practice point: Under an exception to the best evidence rule, secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith. Once the absence of an original document is excused, all competent secondary evidence is admissible to prove its contents. However, the proponent of the secondary evidence has a heavy burden of establishing, preliminarily to the court's satisfaction, that it is a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original. So, as a threshold matter, the trial court must be satisfied that the proffered evidence is authentic and correctly reflects the contents of the original before ruling on its admissibility.
Case: 76-82 St. Marks, LLC v. Gluck, NY Slip Op 01329 (2d Dep't February 22, 2017)
Tomorrow's issue: Guaranties on a note, and counterclaims.