In a defamation action, after finding that the disparaging allegations in a complaint were protected by judicial privilege, the Second Department criticized the use of invective in the pleadings: The court properly concluded that the statements made in the underlying complaint were pertinent to the action and therefore absolutely protected by the judicial proceedings privilege… […]
The Third Department determined plaintiff’s failure to administratively challenge the referral of his support-arrearages case to the Department of Taxation and Finance and the subsequent issuance of a tax warrant (pursuant to provisions of the Social Services Law) barred his action against the Department in Supreme Court. Plaintiff was seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive […]
In reversing Supreme Court and determining the wife was not entitled to maintenance, the Third Department wrote: While “[t]he amount and duration of [a maintenance] award are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (…see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]), “this Court’s authority is as broad as Supreme Court’s in […]
In affirming the dismissal of a complaint on forum non conveniens grounds [after noting the first inquiry must be whether the court has jurisdiction over the parties], the First Department wrote: “The applicability of foreign law is an important consideration in determining a forum non conveniens motion and weighs in favor of dismissal”… .. The […]
The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have denied a request for a one-day adjournment to conduct an independent medical examination (IME): The court improvidently exercised its discretion by denying defendants a one-day adjournment to conduct the already scheduled IME, as there is no evidence that the failure to conduct it previously was willful, […]
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department determined plaintiffs, as part of discovery in this asbestos litigation, were entitled to an in camera review of defendant’s internal communications and to the data underlying published research studies funded by the defendant. The studies purported to cast doubt on whether chrysotile asbestos caused cancer. […]
The Third Department upheld the Appalachian Regional Emergency Medical Services Council’s determination that petitioner’s Article 78 action was untimely. Although the proceeding was brought within 30 days of the written notice of the Council’s determination, and the Council had a policy of issuing written notice, the Third Department determined the 30 day time-limit started when […]
In dismissing the appeal from the denial of a motion to resettle or clarify, the Third Department explained the nature of a motion to resettle and some aspects of motions to reargue and renew: Petitioner’s motion was one to resettle and/or clarify Supreme Court’s prior judgment regarding back pay. Such a motion is designed “not […]
The First Department affirmed the dismissal of a slip and fall complaint finding the one-half-inch differential between the level of the sidewalk and the frame of the cellar door was trivial and could not serve as the basis of liability. Boynton v Haru Sake Bar, 2013 NY Slip Op 04113, 1st Dept, 6-6-13
In affirming the Court of Claims’ dismissal of a claim because claimant was unable to demonstrate the state was properly served, the Third Department explained the relevant law as follows: “A claimant seeking to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence . . . of an officer or employee of [defendant] must file […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy