Comments on Recent Cases: December 2024

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_lights#/media/File:Schöckingen_Weihnachten_2010_(2).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 Holds New Manager’s Statement Insufficient to Support Summary Judgment

An important part of litigation is the motion for summary judgment.  It is a litigant’s opportunity to avoid a trial on the grounds that the opponent has no evidence that can support her claims or defenses.  But to prevail, a movant needs good evidence herself.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff sued Best Buy, claiming one of its delivery people sexually assaulted her.  Best Buy submitted a sworn statement by a manager that said that the assailant was not one of his employees, but instead an independent contractor.  The trial court dismissed the complaint on summary judgment.  But the appeals court reversed because the manager’s statement was insufficient as, among other reasons, the manager did not begin work until several years after the assault, so he would not know the status of the assailant at the relevant time.

Decisions like this illustrate the need to submit the correct evidence in support of a summary judgment motion.

Affirmation Denial Sufficient to Defeat Petition in Special Proceeding

New York courts allow parties to commence a “special proceeding” that lets them start a litigation that may proceed more quickly than a regular lawsuit. One type of special proceeding is to collect on certain kinds of debts where, if there is no dispute about basic facts, can proceed straight to summary judgment rather than follow a longer schedule involving discovery.

Respondents in special proceedings, however, may still raise factual disputes that prevent a quick resolution. For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a law firm commenced a special proceeding against a company officer, claiming he was responsible for the company’s debt. The officer responded with a statement that he did not take the company’s money, making him responsible for its debt, but instead another person stole the money. While the trial court held this was insufficient to defend against the petition, the appeals court reversed.

Cases like this illustrate how a respondent can defend against a special proceeding to collect a debt.

Court Considers Contractual Term When Deciding Summary Judgment

An important part of an agreement are the definitions of terms, which often come in the beginning of the contract.  These terms may be heavily debated in litigation.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, two companies disputed whether one had breached a sale agreement.  One said that the agreement required the other to purchase a company by a certain date.  The other said there was an exception if they could not get necessary “Regulatory Approval” from a relevant government office.  The court affirmed a judgment for the seller after considering the exact definition of “Regulatory Approval” to determine that the approval the buyer could not get did not meet that definition.

Cases like this illustrate the importance of properly defining contract terms.

State Court Defers to Administrative Agency

While federal courts now defer less to administrative agencies when interpreting statutes, state courts have their own rules about deferring in litigation to administrative agencies when interpreting state regulations.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a casino sued a gambler who sought to avoid his debt.  The gambler argued that the casino violated state regulations that prevent rigging dice.  The relevant state agency, however, decided that the casino complied with the applicable rules and the gambler did not submit or seek any evidence that contradicts those findings.  Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed a judgment for the casino.

Cases like this illustrate state court deference to administrative agencies.