Comments on Recent Cases: March 2024

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick's_Day#/media/File:St._Patricks_Day_Parade_(2013)_In_Dublin_Was_Excellent_But_The_Weather_And_The_Turnout_Was_Disappointing_(8566201364).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 Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Different Defendant Citing Res Judicata

Once a lawsuit is over, a plaintiff may face obstacles in trying their same lawsuit again.  Courts respect the principle of res judicata, which means that once a case is decided, the decision is binding in future lawsuits.  But still, some litigants test the limits of what that means.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff lost a case against two companies.  The same plaintiff started a new lawsuit against the principal individual of the companies arising from the same transaction as the first lawsuit.  The court affirmed the dismissal of the second lawsuit since, even though the new lawsuit was against a new defendant, this new defendant was “in privity” with the first defendants and so the first lawsuit represented the plaintiff’s one chance to sue him concerning the transaction.

Cases like this illustrate how res judicata may bar claims, even against new defendants.

Court Permits Negligence Claim Against Rental Company for Car Accident

When starting a lawsuit, a plaintiff needs to consider who will have the money to compensate them.  Often the answer is not just the defendant who directly caused a harm, but another richer defendant that the law holds liable as well.  So a plaintiff in a car accident may sue not just the driver of the car that caused the accident, who may not have a lot of money or insurance, but also the company that owned the car, who may have more.

But a law called the Graves Amendment limits when plaintiffs can sue rental companies for accidents caused by the cars they rent.  The limits of that law were the subject of a recent appeal before the state appeals court in Manhattan.  In that case, the court permitted a plaintiff to sue a rental car company for its own negligence, despite the Graves Amendment, because that law only limited claims that sought to hold rental car companies responsible for a driver’s negligence.

Cases like this illustrate how plaintiffs can seek recovery from companies for negligence claims despite statutory limits.

Court Permits Non-Lawyer to Assert Assigned Company Claim Without Counsel

People have the right to represent themselves in court.  But companies cannot represent themselves since they are not people.  Instead, companies can only appear in court through lawyers, even if just one person owns the company.

This was an issue the state appeals court in Manhattan considered recently.  In that case, a company and an individual sued defendants.  The individual, who was not a lawyer, appeared in court without a lawyer, at first arguing on behalf of themself and the company.  The appeals court considered whether the individual was allowed to argue on behalf of the company, but considered the issue moot because the company assigned its claim to the individual.  As a result, the individual was technically only arguing on their own behalf, pursuing their own claim and the company’s claim that they now own.

Cases like this illustrate how the right to represent one’s self works for corporate claims.

Court Affirms Dismissal of Agency Decision Where Remedies Not Exhausted

Litigants can challenge the rulings of an administrative agency in court.  But there are procedural obstacles that make these lawsuits difficult.  One such challenge is that the litigant must not just lose before the administrative agency, but “exhaust” all of its remedies with the agency first.

This issue arose in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan.  In that case, a litigant sued a New York City agency, claiming that it did enough to cure deficiencies pursuant to an agreement.  The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the case because, among other reasons, the agency’s decision that the deficiencies weren’t cured could be changed in the future and the agreement itself had contemplated the agency having discretion to decide whether the plaintiff’s cure was sufficient.

Cases like this illustrate an important element in litigation challenging agency decisions.