Comments on Recent Cases: February 2025

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine's_Day#/media/File:Elmer_Valentine_boxed_chocolates.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 Rejects Effort to Change Deposition Testimony

After a deposition, a witness should review the transcript of her testimony to make sure that it is accurate. She can note in the “errata” sheet any errors. But the witness can only correct mistakes in the transcription of her words; she cannot alter the substance of her responses in the errata sheet.

This issue arose in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan. A deponent filled out an errata sheet after the deadline to submit one. The court excused the delay since the deponent was attending to the death of her cousin. But the court refused to let her change the substance of her testimony. Instead, if the case proceeded to trial, the witness would need to explain why she was wrong at her deposition.

Cases like this illustrate the procedure for correcting mistakes in deposition transcripts.

Appeals Court Declines to Consider Unpreserved Issue

Appeals courts often limit their analysis to the arguments previously made before the trial court.  And so if a party fails to raise an argument in the trial court, they may try to make it in the appeals court.  But the appeals court may decline to consider it when reaching its decision.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, plaintiff students alleged that a teacher assaulted them.  They sued the nonprofit organization that now controls the program that operated at the school.  The trial court dismissed the claims against the organization since it did not exist at the time of the assaults.  The students argued on appeal that there are doctrines that make organizations liable for the acts of their predecessors.  But the appeals court declined to consider the issue since it was first raised on appeal.

Decisions like this illustrate the importance of preserving issues before the trial court so they can be litigated on appeal.

Court Disqualifies Law Firm Based on Arrival of Adversary’s Former Lawyer

Courts strictly apply ethical rules to ensure that clients can speak openly to their lawyers in litigation and not be concerned about a conflict of interest.  Courts may even rule that a law firm cannot represent a client, and that the client must find new representation, if a conflict exists.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a lawyer who had represented the defendant joined the firm that represented the plaintiff.  The defendant asked the court to disqualify the whole firm that represented the plaintiff since it now employed its former lawyer.  The plaintiff’s firm said that was not necessary since the new lawyer was not a part of the team at the firm who represented the plaintiff.  The appeals court, however, said that was not enough and ruled that while there were some contexts in which keeping a potentially conflicted lawyer away from a case could be sufficient, this was not one of them.  It ruled that the defendant’s firm was therefore disqualified.

Cases like this illustrate the ethical rules concerning conflicts of interest.

Court Denies Summary Judgment in Case Concerning Ambiguous Term

It is important that every word of an agreement have a clear meaning.  This is why complex agreements have a section that just defines terms and why each definition is carefully written.  Without clear definitions, a court may be reluctant to enforce an agreement the way one party understands it.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, the litigants disputed a contract that called for payments to be made once a building found a “long term tenant.”  But the contract did not state what a “long term tenant” was.  Even though one side provided sworn statements that they understood the term to mean a tenant with a lease of at least ten years, the court did not think that was the only possible meaning and held that a trial was required to determine what the term meant.

Cases like this illustrate the importance of clear definitions and terms in agreements.