Comments on Recent Cases: August 2021
Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henri_2021-08-17_1200Z.png
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.
Trial Court Refuses to Recognize Parties’ Agreed Change to Trial Schedule
When a court sets a deadline, often only the court can change the deadline. Parties can agree among each other to revise a case schedule, but when they do so, they usually need to ask the court to approve of their agreement.
This procedure was discussed in a recent Manhattan appellate court decision. In that case, a personal injury defendant made a motion to dismiss the case. The parties agreed three times to delay the deadline for the plaintiff to respond to the motion. The plaintiff relied on the third agreement and filed his opposition to the motion after the second agreement’s deadline had passed, even though the court had not yet approved the third agreement. And even though the plaintiff had filed an opposition, the court rejected the third agreement and dismissed the case because there was no timely opposition.
The appellate court, however, reversed the decision as unduly harsh and suggested that the court sanction the plaintiff’s lawyer instead. Still, this decision shows how parties in litigation should abide by court schedules until the court approves any changes.
New York Court Clarifies Binding Effect of Small Claims Court Decisions
Once a dispute is litigated between two parties, two doctrines ordinarily prevent them from re-litigating the issue. The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from a second litigation over the same dispute as an earlier dispute, and the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents parties from litigating a discrete issue in a second dispute that was decided in the first, even if the overall dispute concerns a different subject.
The difference between these doctrines was discussed in a recent decision in New York’s highest court. In that case, a plaintiff sued her former employer for wages in small claims court. After she won, she sued for more back wages in federal court. The defendant claimed that the small claims court case prevented future litigation about her wages. But the plaintiff cited a New York statute that says that small claims court decisions do not bind other courts from considering the same issues they decided. But the state appeals court left it to the federal court to decide whether it was considering the same dispute, which would be barred by res judicata, or merely one issue in a different dispute, which would not be barred under the statute limiting collateral estoppel.
Court Affirms Seemingly Inconsistent Verdicts In Multiple-Trial Case
When a civil litigation proceeds to trial, the parties may decide to have separate trials to consider separate issues. For example, one trial could decide whether the defendant is liable and the other could decide how much the defendant needs to pay. But one risk in having multiple trials is the possibility of inconsistent verdicts.
For example, in a recent decision, an appeals court in Manhattan considered a dispute between two homeowners. The parties agreed to have one trial arising from their contract claims and another arising from their negligence claims. The contract trial and the negligence trial awarded different amounts of damages for virtually the same conduct, and the parties all appealed. Ultimately, however, the court affirmed the decisions because the parties agreed to the multiple trial procedure and because the trials technically considered different claims.
A Divided Appeals Court Applies a Deceptive Business Practice Statute to the Sale of an Incomplete Law Book
Many states have statutes that prohibit deceptive business practices, awarding additional damages to plaintiffs who sue businesses that misrepresent their products. But what counts as a misrepresentation is often a subject of dispute.
In a recent case, New York’s highest court held that the publisher of a book of landlord tenant laws was not deceptive when it published a volume that omitted numerous relevant laws that long predated its publication. The majority held that the book expressly stated that it did not represent its accuracy and the very fact that laws can change means that no one should rely upon it to be perfectly accurate.
I agree with the dissent, however. A reasonable plaintiff should be able to assume that an annually updated book of laws is complete as of the date of its printing.