Comments on Recent Cases: June 2021
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Måneskin#/media/File:ESC_2021_Rotterdam_1st_Semi_Jury_Show_Italy2.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.
New York Appellate Court Rejects Duress Defense From Contract Party Who Ratified Contract
In New York, a defendant may argue that she is not bound by a contract that she signed under duress. In other words, if she was forced to sign a contract and, once she is able, declares the #contract invalid, then it may not be enforced in litigation. But if she performs anyway, then the defense may not be effective.
This was illustrated in a recent Manhattan appeals decision in which a defendant argued he signed a #loan agreement under duress. But since he subsequently made 41 payments on the loan, the court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff since those payments indicated the plaintiff’s acceptance the contract was valid.
Cases like this should remind contracting parties to determine immediately if their contracts were made under duress and promptly act accordingly.
Defendants In Premises Liability Suits Must Show Lack of Constructive or Actual Notice of a Dangerous Condition
In a personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff alleges unsafe premises, a defendant may argue that she had neither “actual” nor “constructive” knowledge of the unsafe condition. These defenses were illustrated in a recent Manhattan appellate court decision. In that case, the plaintiff slipped and fell on “fish guts.”
The defendant failed to show it didnt have actual knowledge of the “fish guts” because its witness did not testify about the day of the accident or that no one else had complained about the guts. And it failed to show a lack of constructive knowledge since its witness could not say when the area was last cleaned or inspected.
Cases like these show how important it is for premises owners to be constantly aware of hazardous conditions.
Plaintiffs in Premises Liability Actions Can Demonstrate the Defendant’s Knowledge Through Emails
When a tenant sues a landlord for a hazardous condition, the landlord may need to establish that it had neither actual or constructive knowledge of the condition. This is why it is helpful for tenants to notify landlords of possible problems, so that the landlord cannot pretend it was unaware.
This principle was illustrated in a recent Manhattan appeals case, in which a ceiling collapsed on a tenant while she was asleep. She sued and the landlord claimed it was unaware of any problems with the ceiling. The court refused to dismiss the case before trial, however, citing, among other things, an email the tenant sent to the building manager complaining about the ceiling.
Cases like this should remind litigants of the benefits of documenting problems and also the need for business owners to respond to problems as they get raised.
Appeals Court Recognizes Limits to a Discovery Device Called the “Notice to Admit”
A party in litigation may give an adversary a series of statements to which they must admit or deny. For example, one may say “Admit you were an employee of X Corp. on January 5, 2017.” These are called “notices to admit.” But courts have held that their use has limits.
In a recent Manhattan appellate decision, the court affirmed the denial of a motion to demand more answers to a notice to admit. It held that the purpose is “only for disposing of uncontroverted questions of fact or those that are easily provable” so that the parties do not need to waste time proving simple facts in the case. But the court made clear that a notice to admit is not a substitute for other discovery devices, like depositions, which are meant to investigate case facts.
Cases like this one are helpful for lawyers to know when a notice to admit can be useful and how to respond when receiving one.