top of page
All Posts
Some Pitfalls of Moving for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint
Rule 3213 of the CPLR – which permits a litigant to move for summary judgment in lieu of filing a complaint – was designed to streamline litigation in situations where the statute is applicable, provides: When an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment, the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint. The summons served with such motion papers shall
admin
Sep 4, 20205 min read
Court Dismisses Special Proceeding Because Petitioner Failed to Comply With Statutory Requirements
Last week, this Blog wrote about the ramifications of failing to meet a deadline or otherwise act in a timely manner ( here ). In today’s post, we examine the ramifications of failing to meet the procedural requirements set forth in a statute. In Lincoln Sq. Synagogue, Inc. v. Lexington Strategies, LLC , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 32793(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 26, 2020) ( here ), the Court dismissed a turnover proceeding against a garnishee because the judgment creditor failed
admin
Sep 2, 20204 min read
Fraud Notes: Romantic Relationships and Business Relationships. What Could Go Wrong?
Conducting business with family, friends, or neighbors can be a rewarding endeavor. But, like any relationship, it can also be painful, both emotionally and economically. When the latter occurs, lawsuits can follow. The same is true with romantic relationships, especially when the health and well-being of a party to the relationship is at issue. In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two “relationship” cases. In Salimi v. Raffaelle , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 32749(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. C
admin
Aug 31, 20206 min read
The Ramifications of Failing to Timely Serve Papers can be Severe
Every now and then a litigant or counsel fails to meet a deadline or otherwise acts in an untimely manner. Sometimes there is a reasonable excuse and sometimes there is not. Several “saving” provisions in the CPLR are available to assist a litigant or counsel when deadlines are missed. Some such provisions are as follows: CPLR 2005 provides that “ pon an application satisfying the requirements of subdivision (d) of section 3012 or subdivision (a) of rule 5015, the court s
admin
Aug 28, 20203 min read
Statute of Frauds and the At-Will Joint Venture Agreement
In our last post ( here ), we examined the Statute of Frauds – General Obligations Law § 5-701 through § 5-705 – in the context of employment at-will contracts. We noted that such contracts are capable of performance within one year – a requirement under GOL§ 5-701(a)(1). Cron v. Hargro Fabrics , 91 N.Y.2d 362, 367 (1998). As the Court of Appeals has explained, because an at-will employment relationship may be “freely terminated by either party at any time for any reason or e
admin
Aug 26, 20204 min read
Employee-At-Will May Receive Commissions Earned During The Course Of Employment Says Fourth Department
Like most states in the country, New York is an “employment at will” state. This means that if there is no written agreement between the employer and employee governing when the employer can fire the employee, the employer has the right to fire the employee at any time for any reason. Smalley v. Dreyfus Corp. , 10 N.Y.3d 55, 58 (2008). The Court of Appeals has “repeatedly refused to recognize exceptions to, or pathways around, these principles.” Id. Thus, when an employee
admin
Aug 24, 20206 min read
SUFFOLK COUNTY COURTS – Phase 4.1 Procedures
On August 19, 2020, District Administrative Judge, Hon. Andrew A. Crecca, issued a Memorandum regarding the “Return to In-Person Operations in the 10 th Judicial District, Suffolk County – Phase 4.1” (the “Memo”) < HERE =">HERE</a></strong>"> . According to the Memo, Phase 4.1 “builds upon our reopening efforts to date by providing for enhanced in-person operations in all courts throughout the District, the continued use of virtual technology where we have found it to be ap
admin
Aug 21, 20203 min read
Court Declines to Stay 1933 Act State Action In Favor of Parallel Federal Action Alleging Claims Under the 1933 Act and the Exchange Act
On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund , 138 S. Ct. 1061, 1069 (2018), in which it unanimously held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 does not strip state courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over class actions involving claims exclusively brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”), and does not allow for the removal of those cases to federal court. This Blog w
admin
Aug 19, 20209 min read
To Seal, or Not to Seal? That is the Question
Judicial protection of confidential information is often sought to shield highly sensitive information, trade secrets and financial information from the public. One way to achieve this objective is to obtain an order that seals the record from public view. In New York, the issue is governed by Section 4 of the Judiciary Law and Section 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts. Section 4 of the Judiciary law provides that judicial proceedings “shall be public, and ever
admin
Aug 17, 20203 min read
bottom of page
