The Court of Appeals of New York State on April 3, 2018 in a split decision held that plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants liability without the burden of establishing the absence of their comparative negligence. This is a major holding from the highest Court in New York and now the law of the entire State of New York on this particular legal issue. Judge Feinman wrote the decision for the majority of the Court.

2018-04-27T09:55:08+00:00April 27th, 2018|Law, Legal News|

Carlos Rodriguez, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent. FEINMAN, J. This appeal requires us to answer a question that has perplexed courts for some time: Whether a plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of a defendant's liability, when, as here, defendant has arguably raised an issue of fact regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence. Stated differently, to obtain partial summary judgment in a comparative negligence case, must plaintiffs establish the absence of their [...]

Defendants Are Not Bad But Just Negligent.

2018-05-03T20:50:58+00:00April 24th, 2018|Law, Legal News|

Car accidents are a result of negligence.  That is, there’s no mens rea – no intent. Negligence in essence is the failure to take proper care in doing something.  It’s being careless. In personal injury cases, the wrongdoing is usually negligence or carelessness.  Another way of broadly looking at negligence is when something occurs when one person acts or fails to act carelessly, which somehow (either directly or indirectly) causes some type of injury or harm [...]

NEW YORK’S HIGHEST COURT EXPOUNDS AND RE-DEFINES PROXIMATE CAUSE

2018-03-10T22:30:53+00:00November 3rd, 2017|Law, Legal News|

NEW YORK’S HIGHEST COURT EXPOUNDS AND RE-DEFINES PROXIMATE CAUSE The Court of Appeals of New York in Hain v. Jamison, 28 NY3d 524 (Dec 22, 2016) engaged in a hornbook exposition of proximate cause and defined the law on this issue.  The Court of Appeals unanimously revered the Appellate Division and rendered its opinion. The Opinion of the Court of Appeals: I. Decedent, the wife of plaintiff, was struck and killed by a vehicle driven [...]

NEW YORK’S HIGHEST COURT DEFINES THE BURDEN OF PROOF BETWEEN THE PARTIES REGARDING A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FILING (RESOLVING THE SPLIT OF AUTHORITY AMONG THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS).

2018-03-10T22:31:14+00:00November 3rd, 2017|Law, Legal News|

NEW YORK’S HIGHEST COURT DEFINES THE BURDEN OF PROOF BETWEEN THE PARTIES REGARDING A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FILING (RESOLVING THE SPLIT OF AUTHORITY AMONG THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS). The Court of Appeals of New York State in Matter of Newcomb v Middle Country Central School District, 28 NY3d 455 (Dec. 22, 2016) clarified the respective burdens of the parties in demonstrating substantial prejudice (or lack thereof) suffered by a public corporation as a result of [...]

Artibee v Home Place Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01145 Decided on February 14, 2017 Court of Appeals Stein, J.

2018-03-10T19:32:00+00:00August 30th, 2017|Legal News|

Artibee v Home Place Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01145 Decided on February 14, 2017 Court of Appeals Stein, J. New York State’s highest Court held that New York State is not subject to liability apportionment when a plaintiff claims the State (as a defendant) and private party (co-defendant) liable for noneconomic losses in a personal injury action.  A strong dissent was rendered criticizing the majority opinion as giving the State preferential status over the [...]

Reimbursement Claim for No-Fault Paid to Health Insurer Not Permitted

2018-03-10T22:16:16+00:00October 28th, 2016|Legal News|

Reimbursement Claim for No-Fault Paid to Health Insurer Is Not Permitted The issue before the Court of Appeals of New York, in Aetna Health Plans v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04658 (N.Y. June 14, 2016) was whether a health insurer that paid for medical treatment that arguably should have been covered by the insured's no-fault automobile insurance carrier could maintain a reimbursement claim against the no-fault insurer within the framework of the New York [...]

Summary Judgment and No Comparative

2018-03-10T22:17:53+00:00September 7th, 2016|Legal News|

Summary Judgment and No Comparative The New York State Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Department in Rodriguez v City of New York (2016 NY Slip Op 05943, Decided on September 1, 2016), revisited “a vexing issue regarding comparative fault: whether a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, as a matter of law, that he or she is free from comparative fault. This issue has spawned conflicting [...]

NORTH CAROLINA VOTING REQUIREMENTS

2018-03-10T22:32:01+00:00September 2nd, 2016|Legal News|

NORTH CAROLINA VOTING REQUIREMENTS A federal appeals court for the fourth circuit had decisively struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law, holding that its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls. The United States Supreme Court now turned away, by a 4-4 vote, an emergency appeal from North Carolina which was hoping to reinstate new voting rules that were struck down. In NORTH CAROLINA, [...]

OFFICIAL ACT by Elected Officials

2018-03-10T22:12:51+00:00June 27th, 2016|Legal News|

OFFICIAL ACT by Elected Officials The United States Supreme Court in McDONNELL v. UNITED STATES held that an “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” That question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public [...]

SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

2018-03-10T22:16:58+00:00June 26th, 2015|Legal News|

SAME-SEX MARRIAGES The United States Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States. In OBERGEFELL V. HODGES, a landmark decision, the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

You're currently offline