|
|
|
|
•
Welcome to Home Page
•
Committee Proposed Bills
• NY State Statutes
•
NYS Law
Reporting Bureau
|
Committee on Civil Practice Law and Rules What's New -- Hot Items News and Court Decisions of Note Whether you are a stickler or a bumbler when it comes to citation form, Judge Judith Kaye describes some of the changes in the 2002 Style Manual as "downright thrilling". Find out what all the fuss is about by clicking on this link. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/Styman_Menu.htm The Court of Appeals' Recent Ruling on Notices of Pendency. In the Matter of Walter Sakow. 1st Department Diverges from 3rd and 4th Departments on the Timing of Disclosure of Surveillance Tapes. On an issue now destined for review by the state's high court, the 1st Department reaffirmed the applicability of DiMichel v South Buffalo Ry. Co. (80 N.Y.2d 184), despite contrary holdings by "sister" Departments of the Appellate Division. In Tran v. New Rochelle Medical Hospital (2002 NYSlipOp. 02329), the court held that the subsequent passage of CPLR 3101(i) "did nothing to overturn the precedential force of the balance imposed by DiMichel" because of the absence of "legislative memoranda expressing an intent to supecede the entirety of that decision," even though, as the court conceded, the enactment of 3101(i) "did eviscerate that portion of DiMichel which classified surveillance tape as falling within the partially privileged category of materials prepared in anticipation of litigation." New York Court of Appeals Establishes Precedent that a government appellant obtains a new automatic stay when it appeals or moves for leave to appeal - even if the original stay was allowed to lapse. In resolving the interplay between two provisions of the CPLR: 5519a (that affords an automatic state to goverment appellants) and 5519e (that extends the stay while an appeal is pending as long as notice is served within 5 days), the Court of Appeals held that a new automatic stay came into effect when the government moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. See Summerville v. City of New York (March 19, 2002). New York Will Require Engagement Letters - By joint order of the Appellate Divisions, effective March 4, 2002, attorneys engaged by a client for a fee shall provide a client with a written letter of engagement or written retainer agreement before commencing representation or within a reasonable time thereafter (i) if otherwise impracticable or (ii) if the scope of the services cannot be determined at the time of the commencement of the representation. The order makes exceptions for matters in which the expected fee is less than $3,000; where the attorney has previously represented the client and the future services are of the same general kind as previously rendered to and paid for by the client; or domestic relations matters subject to Part 1400 of 22 NYCRR. Please review the rule for precise requirements. In Leader v. Maroney et al. and Hafkin v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., the Court of Appeals affirms lower courts' discretionary power to grant or deny extensions of the 120-day period under CPLR 306-b. Court of Appeals gives retroactive application to 2000 amedment of CPLR 7502(a), permitting a pre-amendment petition to confirm an arbitration award brought in the same proceeding in which arbitration was initially sought. In the Matter of Joseph M. Gleason, et al. v. Michael Vee Ltd., et al. Court of Appeals interprets the doctrine of continuous representation for purposes of construing the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice claim. David Shumsky et al. v. Paul Eisenstein. In Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Service, Inc. , 725 N.Y.S.2d 57 (2d Dep't May 14, 2001), the appellate court determined that the supreme court's practice of purging inactive cases by way of a "calendar car" is improper when applied to cases which have not been placed upon the trial calendar, having reached it only after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness. Where the case has not been placed upon the trial calendar, dilatory conduct must be addressed by other provisions, viz., CPLR 3216 and 22 NYCRR 202.27. Accord, Johnson v. Sam Minskoff & Sons, Inc., 735 N.Y.S. 503 (1st Dept December 20, 2001). Decision Interpreting Amended CPLR 7502(a) [Hon. Thomas A. Adams, Supreme Court, Nassau County, February 21, 2001] (pdf file requires Adobe Acrobat Reader). See Chapter 226 of L.2000 and the CPLR Committee Report Supporting the Legislation. Court of Appeals construes tolling provisions of the amended CPLR 214(6) (eff. 9/4/96) regarding non-medical malpractice claims. See Brothers v. Florence New York State Law Review Commission Ponders Parent-Child Privilege Court of Appeals construes the tolling provisions of CPLR 204(b) in Joseph Francese, Inc. v. Enlarged City School District of Troy Court of Appeals construes CPLR 3212 to permit motion more than 120 days after note of issue for "good cause" due to post-note of issue disclosure. See Inocente Gonzalez, &c. v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp. Court of Appeals denies discovery compelling mother to submit to IQ exam in case involving alleged learning disabilities as the result of child's exposure to lead paint. Read Antonio Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates. |
|
