Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Town of Hempstead sued to have three dogs that attacked a neighbor deemed dangerous and euthanized. Although the injuries incurred were sever, the court found that they were not “serious” as required by statute, and did not meet other statutory requirements. Thus, although the Court felt that the dogs were dangerous and should be euthanized, it was without authority to order it. Instead, the Court required that the dogs undergo behavior evaluation, be muzzled in public and be treated as dangerous dogs.

In a dramatic case, a Suffolk County judge has cancelled a valid and existing note and mortgage. During the course of a foreclosure action, the bank, Indymac Bank, refused to cooperate in reasonable settlement negotiations, engaged in misleading tactics, could not establish the amount that was owed, and demanded full payment of the loan or foreclosure of the property. The court found such conduct to not be in good faith, particularly because an outcome that would have benefitted both the owner and bank was possible under the circumstances yet refused by the bank. Finding the bank’s conduct to be so egregious, the court cancelled the note and mortgage and barred the bank from ever again seeking to collect on the loan.

Claimant sought $5,000 from the City of New York for flooding in her home. The City claimed that it was not negligent in maintaining the sewer system, and that no matter what the cause, because of the torrential rain, any flooding was an act of G-d, excusing any misconduct by the City. The court found the City liable because it performed no inspection even though the City, as a municipality, had an obligation to periodically inspect the sewer and keep it clear from obstruction.

Plaintiff bank sued to collect on a note. Defendant claimed that a bank official orally extended the maturity date on its loan for an additional year so that defendant was not in default. Without denying the oral promise and the fact that negotiations had been undertaken, plaintiff claimed that the loan documents did not allow oral modifications. The court agreed with plaintiff and refused to consider the alleged oral extension of the note’s deadline. The court also decided that plaintiff did not waive the note’s maturity date, regardless of the alleged oral promises.

Plaintiff purchased a used car from a dealer. At the time of purchase, the car was already in need of servicing, and in the week that followed, additional problems arose. Plaintiff took the car to a local repair shop, which informed plaintiff that the car had many problems and was unsafe to drive. Plaintiff returned the car to the dealer for repairs. After the dealer returned the car to the plaintiff, the car was inspected by the same local repair shop that diagnosed the problems. Major problems were still found by the repair shop. Over a period of less than four weeks, repairs were made, but ultimately, the car required a new engine. At each stage of the repairs, plaintiff notified the dealer, but the dealer made no effort to make repairs and expressed no desire to assist the plaintiff. Unable to pay for the new engine, plaintiff sold the car for less than half of its purchase price. In plaintiff’s lawsuit against the dealer, the court determined that at the time that the car was sold it was not fit for its ordinary use and would fail to provide satisfactory and adequate service. The court found that the car had zero value at the time it was sold, and awarded the plaintiff the cost of the car plus plaintiff’s expenses.

Defendant was stopped by store security and charged with larceny after putting a number of items in her bag and then going to a different floor in the store without first paying for those items. Defendant argued, among other things, that there was no indication that she had any intent to steal or otherwise remove the items from the store. The court, critical of the store’s conduct, and noting the absence of any sign restricting the movement of goods between floors, agreed with the defendant and dismissed the charges.

Plaintiff claims she fell in a pothole upon exiting a City bus. The City claims that the bus driver could not discharge the passenger at the bus stop because two cars were parked in the bus stop. In response to plaintiff’s lawsuit, the City sued the owners of the illegally parked cars. The court denied the car owners’ claim that they could not have been the cause of plaintiff’s injury, finding that because the owner of an improperly parked could be liable even in the face of a negligent driver, it is possible that a jury could find the two owners liable.

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.

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.

Plaintiffs sought a court order finding that the action of the Mayor and City Council in extending their term limits violated the law because they used their positions to garner for themselves a personal advantage. After considering that the City’s Conflict of Interest Board found no conflict in the Members’ vote to extend, even where such vote would impact the jobs and interests of those that took part in the vote, there was no improper conduct by those voting to extend the term limit.