City contractors cut Bloomingdales' drainage pipe thinking it was a dead line and installed a cement-encased conduit. After flooding in its basement, Bloomingdales commenced an action against the City and its contractor. Although actions against the City must be commenced within one year and ninety days, the Court of Appeals held that because the injury was not just the cutting of the pipe but the ongoing injury created by the conduit in preventing Bloomingdales access to the drainage pipe, the trespass claim was an ongoing claim and not time barred.
June 2009 Archives
Lawyer sought the dismissal of malpractice claims in connections with lawyer's representation of client in purchasing a condominium which had a desirable view. The purchase was based largely on that view. Plaintiff claimed that because her lawyer represented the seller of an adjoining property and knew that the buyer of that property would build a building that would block her condominium's view, her lawyer had an obligation to disclose that information as he was aware that the view was what motivated her to buy the condominium. The court held that because the lawyer knew these facts, and because he owed his client a high-level duty, plaintiff's claim of malpractice was not dismissed.