You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

,

BUYERS OF THE HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS SURVIVE THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT; BUT THE BUYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a factually complex opinion by Justice Oing, determined (1) the specific performance provisions in the purchase agreement survived termination of the purchase agreement; and (2) the buyer’s summary judgment motion seeking specific performance should not have been granted. The facts of the case are far too detailed […]

, , ,

ABSENT FRAUD OR COLLUSION, STRICT PRIVITY PRECLUDES THE PROSPECTIVE BENEFICIARIES OF AN ESTATE FROM BRINGING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY WHO PLANNED THE ESTATE; THE ATTORNEY OWED NO DUTY TO THE BENEFICIARIES (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the malpractice action by the prospective beneficiaries of an estate against the attorney who planned the estate should have been dismissed because there was no privity between the beneficiaries and the attorney: In the context of estate planning malpractice actions, strict privity applies to preclude a third party, […]

, ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT APPORTIONING LIABILITY TO THE GYNECOLOGIST WHO NOTED IN HIS REPORT HE FOUND “NO ABNORMALITIES” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE NOTATION MISLED THE PRIMARY CARE PHYICIAN RESULTING IN A DELAY IN DIAGNOSING APPENDICITIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Dr. Subramanyam’s motion to set aside the verdict apportioning liability to him in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff experienced abdominal and was referred by her primary physician (defendant Dr. Selitsky) to Dr. Subramanyam for a gynecological exam. Dr. Subramanyam’ noted in his report […]

,

RE: DETERMINING THE CORRECT JURISDICTION FOR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PURPOSES, THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION ALLEGING PURELY ECONOMIC INJURY IS USUALLY IN THE “PLACE OF INJURY,” WHICH IS USUALLY WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a decision too complex to fairly summarize here, noted that for breach of contract actions alleging purely economic injury the claims accrue in the “place of injury,” usually plaintiff’s residence: … Supreme Court should not have found that the claims accrued in New York and were timely under New York’s six-year […]

,

HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS BECAME AWARE OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact concerning when the plaintiffs became aware of the alleged fraud. Therefore the complaint should not have been dismissed as time-barred: Fraud claims must be commenced within “the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years […]

, ,

WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG RULING WHICH CANNOT BE APPEALED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROMPTED BY A MOTION, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015 IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY; THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE CAN BE APPEALED, AS WAS SUCCESSFULLY DONE HERE (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 because no motion to dismiss had been made and plaintiff was not given any warning or an opportunity to respond. The court noted that when a judge makes a wrong ruling, here the dismissal of the […]

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS REPLY TO A COUNTERCLAIM TO ADD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY IMPROPER AND DEFENDANT SHOWED THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE BY NOT OPPOSING THE MOTION TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend a reply to a counterclaim to add the statute-of-limitations affirmative defense should have been granted, noting that mere lateness is not an adequate ground for denial of a motion to amend. The court also noted that defendant’s failure to oppose the motion demonstrated a […]

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was struck in the head by falling debris. The Industrial Code regulation requiring a hard hat was not demonstrated to be inapplicable by the defendant: … Supreme Court should have denied those branches of […]

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK CROSSING THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE SEEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s summary judgment motion in this pedestrian-car accident case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff pedestrian violated the Vehicle and Traffic law by crossing the street where there was no crosswalk, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether defendant-driver failed to see what she should have […]

THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS TOLLING THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO THE TIME FOR ANSWERING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID executive orders tolling the statute of limitations applied to the time to oppose a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint: In Brash v Richards, this Court determined that Executive Order 202.8 and the subsequent executive orders acted to toll those specific time limits contained […]

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy