Comments on Recent Cases: April 2025

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration#/media/File:Trump_showing_a_chart_with_reciprocal_tariffs_(cropped).jpg

Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.

Court Limits Scope of Deposition

Parties in litigation have very broad powers to ask questions and gain information about the other parties. This often includes information that is irrelevant to the case. But in some instances, courts will put limits on the subjects of inquiry in discovery.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff insisted that a defendant be prepared to testify at deposition about another lawsuit involving the defendant. The defendant persuaded the trial court to prohibit those questions since the subject matter was irrelevant to the lawsuit at issue and because the information was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court held that the plaintiff’s claim that the information was “material and necessary” was insufficient to justify its request and the appeals court affirmed the order.

One thing to note is that raising issues like this cost money and take time. This lawsuit began in 2019, the court order was issued in October 2024 and the appeal was decided five months later.

Cases like this illustrate the limits on the subject matter of depositions.

Court Rejects Motion to Disqualify In-House Litigation Counsel

A party to a litigation may ask the judge to disqualify opposing counsel.  Often these motions arise when a lawyer has represented both sides of a dispute, presenting a conflict of interest.  But sometimes, lawyers make these motions when they identify technical problems arising from opposing counsel’s representation.  Judges, however, are often skeptical of these motions.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a company’s in-house legal department represented the owner of the company.  Opposing counsel claimed that a non-lawyer’s ownership of a company whose legal department represented him violated the rule that only a lawyer can own a law firm.  The court rejected this argument, among others, and held that there was no evidence to indicate that the company legal department’s arrangement violated New York’s legal ethics rules.

Cases like this illustrate, however, the analysis that lawyers must perform to ensure their representations satisfy the rules of professional conduct.

Employee Bound By Release Despite Claim of Bad Legal Advice

When a plaintiff signs a release, settling a claim, she may be giving up her right to bring another litigation, even one that is unrelated to the settled claim. This is why it is important to consider the effects of a release before signing one.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an employee signed a release after settling an unpaid wages claim. The appeals court held that this barred his discrimination claim. Although the employee claimed that his lawyer had told him otherwise, the court held that was irrelevant in the absence of evidence that the employer also thought the release was limited to the wage claim.

Cases like this illustrate how difficult it is to litigate despite the existence of a release.

Court Requires Hearing to Consider Whether to Lift Default Judgment

If a defendant does not respond to a complaint, a court may enter a default judgment against her. But a defendant may later come to court and claim she never got the complaint and ask for a new opportunity to respond. Courts can be receptive to this request, but not always.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a defendant appealed from a default judgment. It did not update its address in the state business registry, and so the plaintiff sent the complaint to the government, who sent it to the old address. The defendant claimed that it would have gotten the complaint on time if it went to the right address and so it asked for a chance to respond late. The trial judge said no, holding that the defendant should have updated its address. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether the defendant really received the complaint on time.

Cases like this illustrate how important it is to update a business address, and how judges may differ on how to treat efforts to lift default judgments.