Comments on Recent Cases: January 2025
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2016_United_States_blizzard#/media/File:Central_Park_New_York_January_2016_004.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 Excludes AI Enhanced Video
Litigation News recently published an article I wrote about a decision by a trial court to exclude AI enhanced video as evidence at trial. The decision applied traditional rules about whether evidence is reliable. It ultimately found that the AI enhancement technology was not generally accepted by the relevant scientific community and that it did not reliably generate repeatable results.
Court Refuses to Disturb Arbitration Award
Parties choose arbitration over litigation for many reasons, and one is to avoid a lengthy litigation and appeals process. Still, the unsuccessful party may try to litigate and appeal further rather than accept a loss. But courts are reluctant to undermine the finality of arbitration.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an successful party asked the court to vacate an arbitration award, claiming the arbitrator hid a potential conflict and that the arbitrator ignored the applicable law. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to to interfere, holding that the failure to disclose the potential conflict was insufficient to show the arbitrator was biased and that the arbitrator considered the applicable law. It noted that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the law did not need to be the same as the court’s for the court to defer to it.
Cases like this illustrate how difficult it is to challenge an arbitration decision in court.
Court Holds Bonus is Not Statutorily Protected Wage
An employee can bring an employer to court to demand payment of unpaid compensation. But certain specific types of income entitle an employee to greater legal protections. For example, an employee who is not paid a minimum wage can sue in federal court and can recover attorney’s fees and penalties. But some employees who do not get a bonus may have to sue in state court and bear their own attorney’s fees. Accordingly, a side issue in a wage dispute may be about what kind of compensation is at issue.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an employee claimed that a discretionary bonus was the kind of wage protected by the state Labor Law. But the court rejected the claim since the bonus was not for a guaranteed amount.
Cases like this illustrate the limits to protections for employees in wage claims.
Court Reverses Dismissal So Plaintiff May Take Jurisdictional Discovery
A defendant in litigation may argue that the plaintiff sued in the wrong court. For example, a California defendant may claim that they should not need to participate in a lawsuit in a New York court. And while judges often decide these issues before the parties need to exchange evidence, sometimes courts require a limited exchange of evidence to decide whether the plaintiff chose the right court.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a landlord sued two foreign companies. It argued that those companies should be responsible for unpaid rent from one of the landlord’s tenants. The trial court dismissed the case because the foreign companies were not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. But the appeals court reversed, holding that jurisdictional discovery was necessary to determine whether the foreign companies could be sued in New York. In particular, the court noted that the references to New York business in the foreign companies’ website and news articles provided a “sufficient start” to entitle the plaintiff to seek evidence.
Cases like this illustrate how plaintiffs can avoid dismissal of claims against foreign defendants.
Court Holds Tort Claim Duplicative of Contract Claim
When a plaintiff has a contract with a defendant, it can be very difficult for the plaintiff to also assert a tort claim (like fraud or negligence) against them. This is because courts consider the contract to control the legal relationship between them.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, the owner of an apartment sued an architecture firm and one of its officers for breach of contract and for negligence. The trial court dismissed the negligence claim since a contract existed between the owner and the firm. But the appeals court reinstated the negligence claim against the officer since the contract was only between the plaintiff and the firm, not against the officer individually.
Cases like this illustrate the principle that a contract may foreclose a tort claim.