In a March 27, 2015, Commercial Division decision by Justice Ramos, the court denied a motion by plaintiff NYC Dept. of Social Services to reargue defendant-trustee’s motion to dismiss for res judicata purposes.
The case arose out of an underlying medical malpractice action involving the treatment of defendant’s son at New York Presbyterian Hospital. The parties settled the malpractice action, under which NYPH agreed to indemnify defendant for any Medicaid payments sought by plaintiff in connection with his son’s treatment. Continue Reading
In a March 12, 2015, Commercial Division decision by Justice Pines, the court denied dismissal of a breach of contract cause of action.
In this case, plaintiff U.S. Nonwovens Corp. (“Plaintiff”) entered into an agreement with defendant Nuspark Engineering Corp. (“Nuspark”) for the purchase of a custom automatic filling and sealing machine (“Auto Tubber”) for use in its business of producing non-woven products. Plaintiff agreed to pay Nuspark $150,000 for the Auto Tubber, as well as installation and commissioning. Continue Reading
In a February 24, 2015, Commercial Division decision by Justice Demarest, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification of two of its claims. This case arose out of a development project for which the defendant North 7-8 Investors, LLC (“North 7-8) was the owner and developer of the project and the defendant Britt Realty, LLC (“Britt”) was the general contractor and/or construction manager. Continue Reading
In a February 5, 2015, Commercial Division decision by Justice Demarest, the court dismissed an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property because plaintiff failed to provide the notice pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) § 1303(1)(b).
RPAPL § 1303 provides that “the foreclosing party in a mortgage foreclosure action, involving residential real property shall provide notice to: (a) any mortgagor if the action relates to an owner-occupied one-to-four family dwelling; and (b) any tenant of a dwelling unit in accordance with the provisions of this section.” Continue Reading
In a March 4, 2015 Commercial Division decision by Justice Bransten, the court entered sanctions against counsel for defendant landlord, awarding attorneys’ fees on the motion and for related depositions. The court also granted in part the landlord’s motion to dismiss the cause of action of plaintiff tenant-law firm for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Continue Reading
In a decision dated January 21, 2015, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order from the Kings County Commercial Division granting defendant-developers’ motion to dismiss as time-barred plaintiff-contractor’s claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Continue Reading
In an October 28, 2014 decision, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed the Commercial Division, New York County’s decision, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. This action arose from the individual defendant’s (“Ephraim”) two-year employment contract (the “Contract”) with the plaintiff (“Greystone”), which included three restrictive covenants at issue: a noncompete clause; a nonsolicitation clause; and a confidentiality provision (the “Covenants”). Continue Reading
In a December 4, 2014 Commercial Division decision by Justice Whelan, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s alleged failure to join a necessary party, and to compel arbitration in the alternative. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was an alter ego of a non-party company for whom the plaintiff contractually agreed to perform software development. Continue Reading
In a January 30, 2015, Commercial Division decision by Justice Scheinkman, the court granted defendant’s motion dismissing plaintiffs’ class action complaint based on the enforcement of a forum selection clause.
Plaintiffs commenced this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated who have been charged a $1.20 deposit handling fee for every 24-bottle case of beverages purchased from defendant that was eligible for a five cents per bottle refund, alleging that defendant, Coca-Cola, violated the New York’s Returnable Container Act (the “Bottle Bill”). Continue Reading