I received some interesting information from EisnerAmper concerning this issue, which many people may be unaware of. Have a read here.
In late December 2013, new laws were put in place addressing non-profits. While we do not have a significant non-profit practice, we are often asked about issues relating to non-profits. To that end, here is a link to a more robust discussion of the Nonprofit Revitalization Act of 2013.
A lender has two options in seeking repayment on a defaulted home loan. A lender has the option of commencing a foreclosure action, auctioning the property, and applying the sale proceeds against the loan amount due. Or, a lender can sue based on the promissory note underlying the loan and obtain a money judgment. A lender cannot do both. RPAPL § 1304 requires that a lender provide a 90-day notice before it commences a lawsuit based on a home loan, which is typically a foreclosure action. The question facing the court in this case was whether the 90-day notice is also required where the lender sues on the promissory note and foregoes seeking foreclosure.
Construing the statute broadly, the court found that RPAPL § 1304 is to be applied to any lawsuit commenced against a borrower that involves a home loan. The court seemed compelled to explain this outcome, because aside from finding this outcome to be consistent with the language of the statute, it grounded its decision on the fact that once a money judgment is obtained by the lender, the home owner will be “subject to levy upon his or her personal property, motor vehicle, savings account and/or other asset, such could result in the borrower being compelled to sell the property in order to protect these possessions.” The court was also concerned that a money judgment “may complicate settlement negotiations” in the event the borrower also defaulted on a senior loan (this case involved a second loan). As a result, this borrower was entitled to the remedial provisions of this statute.
While the outcome here seems reasonable, it is clear that Judge Demarest felt the need to rationalize the outcome by making assumptions about what might occur in the future which could result in the sale of the property. Does that mean that for RPAPL § 1304 to apply in this setting there must be a possibility that the subject property will be at some point sold?
A deli rented space from 137 Broadway Associates, located at 3379 Broadway. Prior to renting that space, the deli rented from Cromwell Associates, located at 3381 Broadway. The deli had purchased an insurance policy, which included the landlord as an additional insured. Mistakenly, although the deli was now renting from 137 Broadway, Cromwell was listed as the additional insured and not 137 Broadway. After being sued for a patron’s fall, who named both the deli and 137 Broadway, the carrier refused to defend 137 Broadway, claiming that it was not listed as an insured party.
137 Broadway commenced a lawsuit against the carrier, seeking to compel the carrier to defend it in the lawsuit, claiming that it was the intended party to be insured. The carrier argued that the policy documents were clear and did not list 137 Broadway as an insured party. The court refused to accept that approach. After first reciting the principle that the written list of insured parties was not always exclusive as to which party was to be insured, the court determined that where the intent of the parties as to coverage is clear, mistakenly listing the wrong entity would not alone preclude coverage for the intended party. The court noted that the mistake was obvious because there was no way that Cromwell Associates could obtain any benefit by being listed as an additional insured.
137 Broadway Associates, LLC v. 602 West 137th Deli Corp.
Plaintiff, John T. Forcelli, sued for injuries incurred in an auto accident. While motions to dismiss were pending, the parties mediated the claim. Although one of the defendant’s insurance carriers discussed settlement, no agreement was reached. Shortly thereafter, settlement discussions were revived by email exchange. The carrier’s representative offered $200,000, which was later raised to $230,000. That amount was agreed to orally by Mr. Forcelli’s counsel. The carrier confirmed that amount in a subsequent email, which was signed “[t]hanks Brenda Green” (the carrier’s representative). Settlement and release papers were exchanged and signed by Mr. Forcelli. A few days later, before the defendants had signed off, the court issued a decision granting dismissal of the lawsuit. Thus, the carriers refused to sign the settlement papers or pay any amount to Mr. Forcelli.
The parties went back to the judge. The issue was whether or not the email from Brenda Greene was to be deemed an enforceable, proper, settlement agreement under the law. The judge found that it was.
The carriers appealed but the Second Department affirmed. That court recited the requirements for finding an enforceable agreement–a written agreement signed by the party or his counsel, which includes all of the material terms of the agreement. The email contained the settlement amount and Mr. Forcelli’s agreement to settle, the relevant terms. The fact that not all of the defendants or their counsel had signed off was not a bar, as Ms. Greene had apparent authority to bind all of the defendants. Recognizing that an email is not formally signed, the Second Department allowed this emails as they were clear to show the parties’ intent to settle. That Ms. Greene wrote out her name at the end of the email was further proof of affirmative consent (differentiating from an auto-signature at the end of an email).
A recent decision by a New Jersey appellate court has held that one sending a text to someone that is known or should be known to be driving, and in some way encourages a response to that message, may be liable for injuries sustained in a resulting accident. That said, the applicability of this rule seems rather limited.
In this case, Kyle Best hit and injured two bikers. During the resulting litigation, it became obvious that he was exchanging texts with Shannon Colonna immediately before the accident. Upon learning that, the plaintiffs included Colonna in the lawsuit. Colonna moved for dismissal arguing that she owed no duty to the plaintiffs and was in no way involved in the accident.
The court was clearly sympathetic to the plaintiffs, not surprising given the serious injuries, but refused to hold Colonna liable. However, the court did find that “a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, [that] the recipient will view the text while driving.” The court explained that because “Colonna did not have a special relationship with Best by which she could control his conduct [… n]or is there evidence that she actively encouraged him to text her while he was driving,” Colonna could not be found liable for Best’s accident. The court added that despite what Colonna might have known, and “[e]ven if a reasonable inference can be drawn that she sent messages requiring responses, the act of sending such messages, by itself, is not active encouragement that the recipient read the text and respond immediately, that is, while driving and in violation of the law.” Explaining that culpable conduct by the texter would involve something beyond sending the text, the court found that “[p]laintiffs produced no evidence tending to show that Colonna urged Best to read and respond to her text while he was driving.”
This case presents an interesting discussion of copyright law, but not only based on a court decision, but on a disgruntled ex-client’s claim against his lawyer.
Bernard Gelb and his company hired an attorney, Norman Kaplan, to file a class action lawsuit. After that lawsuit was dismissed, Gelb and Kaplan filed an appeal on behalf of the class members. Before that appeal was decided Gelb and Kaplan parted ways. However, the other members of the class kept Kaplan as counsel. Gelb withdrew from the appeal (he initially tried to withdraw the entire appeal, which he was not allowed to do, so he withdrew his participation in that appeal). Thereafter, Gelb, claiming that he had a role in drafting the initial court papers, filed for copyright protection of those court papers. After the appellate court reversed the dismissal and reinstated the case, Kaplan proceeded with the case on behalf of the remaining class, using and amending the initial court papers that had been filed before dismissal was ordered.
Gelb sued Kaplan claiming that Kaplan’s continued use of the initial court papers, including the complaint, infringed on Gelb’s copyright. Kaplan’s motion to dismiss Gelb’s claims was granted and Gelb appealed.
On appeal, the Second Circuit, after noting Gelb’s “sharp litigation practices,” upheld the dismissal of Gelb’s claims. The court agreed with the lower court’s reasoning and explained further that when Gelb directed Kaplan to file the complaint, Gelb issued to Kaplan an irrevocable implied license to use those papers in the lawsuit, without limitation. Key to that finding was the court’s discussion that when a copyright holder allows another to use a document in a litigation, he knows or should know that the document may be necessary throughout the legal proceeding–even by a different attorney. The court also highlighted its concern that allowing Gelb to proceed on his claim would preclude a court from doing its business. A court could not adjudicate a case if it had to compete with the copyright considerations of the papers before it. Allowing this claim could also encourage attorneys to hold a case or client hostage by claiming ownership of a document. In sum, the court held:
Avis’s car rental agreement provided that the renter would be charged the non-discounted rate for E-Z Pass toll usage. In its provisions dealing with rental charges, Avis made no mention of an additional $2.50 fee, assessed daily, for the renter’s E-Z Pass use. When Avis demanded that the renter pay that daily fee, the renter refused. Instead, he sued Avis and sought class action status. The renter claimed that Avis breached the rental agreement and argued that Avis’s conduct violated New York State’s consumer protection statutes.
In denying Avis’s request to dismiss the case, the court emphasized that while the font type of the language addressing this daily fee satisfied the statutory minimum, the fact that Avis disclosed the $2.50 fee in its paragraph titled “Collections,” where Avis detailed its rights in the event of a renter’s non-payment and not in the “Rental Charges” section, where all of the other rental charges are addressed, could be misleading to the consumer and precluded dismissal of the lawsuit.