Comments on Recent Cases: March 2025
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Day#/media/File:388-0049-hinnerk-ruemenapf_01.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 Limits Scope of Deposition
Parties in litigation have very broad powers to ask questions and gain information about the other parties. This often includes information that is irrelevant to the case. But in some instances, courts will put limits on the subjects of inquiry in discovery.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff insisted that a defendant be prepared to testify at deposition about another lawsuit involving the defendant. The defendant persuaded the trial court to prohibit those questions since the subject matter was irrelevant to the lawsuit at issue and because the information was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court held that the plaintiff’s claim that the information was “material and necessary” was insufficient to justify its request and the appeals court affirmed the order.
One thing to note is that raising issues like this cost money and take time. This lawsuit began in 2019, the court order was issued in October 2024 and the appeal was decided five months later.
Cases like this illustrate the limits on the subject matter of depositions.
Court Holds General Release Ends Two Lawsuits When Plaintiff Believed It Only Applied to One
When parties settle litigation, they need to be very careful that they are not affecting their legal rights in other matters. This is because settlement agreements almost always include a release that ends any legal liability between the parties. This may cancel unrelated contracts and even dispose of unrelated claims even where the parties did not consider that possibility.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a man sued the New York City Police Department for two separate incidents in two separate lawsuits. When he settled one of the two lawsuits, he signed a general release that did not say it excluded the other lawsuit. The city later said that the release ended both lawsuits. The appeals court agreed, holding that the text of the release said it ended all claims, even if the plaintiff did not intend that effect. One dissenting judge said that was an unfair result and would set a bad precedent.
Cases like this illustrate how important it is that lawyers carefully review releases and make sure that they are not overbroad.
Court Dismisses Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim
A claim that arises sometimes in litigation is one for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs frequently tell their lawyers that a defendant’s conduct was so egregious that it caused them to be upset. That may be true, but courts are often reluctant to permit the claims to succeed.
For example, a recent decision from the federal court in Manhattan refused to dismiss several claims by Jewish students alleging that a university was indifferent to anti-Semitism following the October 7 attacks by Hamas in Israel. The decision sided with the plaintiffs on several issues and was very sympathetic to their allegations. But it dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim because, even under circumstances that "could reasonably have been viewed as physically threatening or humiliating” there was no “especially unreasonable risk of actual physical harm.”
Cases like this illustrate the very high burden for negligent infliction claims.
Court Rejects Effort to Assert Claim After Expiration of the Statute of Limitations
Courts may dismiss litigation, even meritorious claims, if plaintiffs do not sue before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs may argue that the court should permit the claims to proceed, even if they are late, but courts may be skeptical of the argument.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff claimed that a defendant committed fraud. The defendant argued that the statute of limitations had expired, but the plaintiff argued that the lies prevented it from timely bringing the claims. The court held that the plaintiffs still could have brought the claim on time and, in any event, the “mere denial of wrongdoing” is not a sufficient lie to extend the limitations period.
Cases like this illustrate the difficulty in getting around the statute of limitations.
Court Refuses to Permit Plaintiff to Substitute Executor as Defendant
When a defendant dies during a lawsuit, a plaintiff can ask the court to substitute the executor of her estate as the defendant. But what happens when the defendant dies before the start of the lawsuit and there is no executor yet?
A recent decision before the state appeals court in Manhattan had to consider this issue. It ruled that the plaintiff could not ask the court to appoint an executor, nor could it substitute in the executor after the case began with the deceased’s estate as a defendant. This poses a challenge for plaintiffs to identify the proper party to sue, and to do so quickly when the deadlines of the statute of limitations may be approaching.
Cases like this illustrate the challenges that arise when bringing claims against a deceased defendant.