Comments on Recent Cases: March 2022
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 Reverses Sanction Order on Procedural Grounds
Judges have the power to punish attorneys who violate rules or behave poorly in their courtrooms. This power makes litigation more orderly because it generally forces the representatives of opposing sides to act respectfully. But a judge’s power to sanction an attorney has limits.
In a recent case, the state appellate court in Manhattan considered the decision by a judge in the Bronx to order a plaintiff’s attorney to pay $10,000 to the defense attorney. The judge did not do so after the defense attorney asked; she did so on her own initiative. The plaintiff appealed, however, arguing that the court rules only allow a court to impose sanctions “after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” and with a written decision explaining why the sanctions were imposed. Since the judge did not meet these requirements, the appeals court reversed the punishment.
Cases like this serve as a reminder about how a court’s power to sanction parties works.
Court Applies High Standard to Reargue Arbitration Decisions
After the final decision in an arbitration, the losing party has one last recourse: it can ask a court to vacate the arbitration award. But because arbitration is meant to be a substitute for litigation, and not to duplicate it, courts are very reluctant to grant that relief.
In a recent decision by the state appellate court in Manhattan, a petitioner claimed that an arbitration award should be vacated because the respondent hid important evidence. The court rejected the claim, since, among other things, it was not supported by “clear and convincing evidence” of “the existence of fraud or misconduct.”
Cases like this set forth the high standard litigants must meet to vacate arbitration awards.
Court Limits Efforts to Punish Lawyers for Misconduct
Attorneys in New York that make false representations in litigation may get sued under a statute that governs attorney conduct, Judiciary Law 487. But litigants that want to hold lawyers accountable may only get one opportunity to bring their claims.
A recent decision by the state appellate court in Manhattan illustrates this rule. In that case, the defendant in a lawsuit asked the court to punish the plaintiff’s lawyer for misconduct. The court declined to do so, and then the defendant brought a separate lawsuit against the lawyer. The court held that the original court’s decision was the litigant’s one chance to bring her misconduct claim under the principle of collateral estoppel.
Cases like this clarify the rules that hold lawyers accountable.
Court Holds Defendant Ratified Contract He Did Not Sign
Even if someone does not enter into a contract, they may be liable in litigation for it if they ratify it. Ratification usually involves conduct that indicates an approval of the contract after it is made.
For example, in a recent decision, the state appellate court in New York affirmed a decision against a debtor who claimed he didn’t agree to the debt. The court recognized that he had notice of the debt agreement that purported to have his signature for three months and did not object. According to the court, his silence was sufficient to ratify the debt.
Cases like this illustrate how parties can be liable for agreements through ratification.