Comments on Recent Cases: May 2024

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#/media/File:100_Centre_St_-_New_York_City_(48126525691).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 Voting Rights Act

This month, Litigation News published an article I wrote about a recent appeals court decision that substantially limited voting rights litigation. While I focus my litigation practice on commercial disputes, I found the case interesting because it illustrated how a long shot argument could succeed.

After decades of cases in which many courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, decided cases brought pursuant to a particular statute brought by private parties, a litigant argued the law did not permit those lawsuits. The argument succeeded at a trial court and was affirmed on appeal, inviting the Supreme Court to revisit how the law applies.

Cases like this illustrate how litigants can scrutinize the law for possible arguments and how litigation may be unpredictable.

Court Permits Malicious Prosecution Claim

Defendants often respond to lawsuits with anger towards the plaintiff. “This is ridiculous!” a defendant may say. “I should be suing them for filing such a baseless complaint against me.” Though not often, there are some circumstances in which a defendant may actually sue a plaintiff for filing a bad lawsuit, arguing malicious prosecution. The potential recovery, though, is limited to damages arising from the lawsuit, not just the legal fees and emotional distress that arise from litigation.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff alleged the defendant sued it and then withdrew the case. It also argued that, before the case was withdrawn, it lost customers. The trial court dismissed the case, citing documents that showed the underlying case had merit. But the appeals court let it stand, since those documents did not concern the lost customers.

Cases like this illustrate how a plaintiff may allege malicious prosecution.

Court Reverses Dismissal of Account Stated Claim

New York courts allow a plaintiff to sue someone who receives an invoice without objecting to it.  Unlike a traditional breach of contract action, an “account stated” action just is limited to whether the invoice was delivered and whether the defendant objected.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, the trial court dismissed a complaint by a law firm seeking to collect legal fees.  The trial court considered whether the fees were reasonable.  The appeals court reversed the dismissal, holding the only criteria the court should have considered were whether the invoice was delivered and whether the defendant objected.

Cases like this illustrate, among other things, the importance of objecting to invoices.

Court Considers But Denies Claim in Interlocutory Appeal Brought By Article 78 Petition

Often, litigants wait until the end of a trial or the issuance of a judgment before seeking an appeal.  This is because the appeal may not be necessary of the trial or the litigation produces a favorable result despite the action that prompted the appeal.  Or because there may be a settlement that make the appeal unnecessary.  But sometimes, parties take interlocutory appeals during a litigation.

In a high profile example before the state appeals court in Manhattan, the trial court in a criminal case issued an order barring the defendant from making certain public statements.  Instead of directly appealing the order, the defendant immediately filed a petition, claiming that the trial judge exceeded his authority in issuing the order.  Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), this petition was transferred to the appeals court, which considered and rejected the argument.

Cases like this illustrate how an interlocutory appeal through an Article 78 petition procedurally works and the high bar to succeed on one.