Comments on Recent Cases: November 2024
Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Elections_in_the_United_States#/media/File:TurboVote_-_Flickr_-_Knight_Foundation_(3).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 Rules Bankrupt Woman Lacks Standing to Assert Injury Clam
A principal question a lawyer must ask before commencing litigation is who the correct plaintiff should be. Not every plaintiff has standing to bring a lawsuit, and making the wrong choice may not be easy to fix. In some cases this is an easy question, but in others it can be more difficult.
For example, in a case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a woman declared bankruptcy. Several months later, she sued a doctor for malpractice. But since she declared bankruptcy, she no longer was the correct plaintiff to assert her personal injury claim; the claim belonged to the bankruptcy trustee. Her lawyer tried to fix this by just amending the complaint, but the appeals court said the lawsuit had to start all over again with the correct plaintiff.
Cases like this illustrate the importance of standing in drafting a complaint.
Court Dismisses Lawsuit Because Amended Complaint Did Not Cure Defects in Original
At the outset of litigation, a plaintiff must choose the court to file her claim. The court must be one that has legal authority over the defendant: it is possible that a court in California or Canada may not have power over someone who has never left New York. And a plaintiff needs to explain to the court how it derives that power.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff did not explain why Pennsylvania defendants were subject to jurisdiction in New York in his complaint. He subsequently amended the complaint to discuss actions the defendants took after the initial filing that, he argued, subjected them to the authority of the New York court. But the court ruled that the initial complaint needed to have this information and that actions taken subsequent to that filing cannot give the New York court jurisdiction.
Cases like this illustrate the importance of alleging facts supporting personal jurisdiction in a complaint.
Court Rejects Challenge to Service of Summons
Courts are often skeptical of a defendant’s claim that she did not receive litigation papers. As long as someone signs a sworn statement that they delivered papers to the defendant’s home, it is hard to challenge the validity of the service.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, the defendant in a lawsuit disputed whether the process server really delivered a summons to her home. But the court rejected the challenge since it did not identify “sharp discrepancies” with the facts alleged in the process server’s statement. And since the defendant did not dispute that the address in the statement was her primary residence and that her daughter, who allegedly received the papers, resided there and was over 18 years old, the court held the statement to be sufficient.
Cases like this illustrate the difficulty in challenging service.
Court Permits Expert Witness Testimony Over Objection
In litigation, parties often submit the testimony of expert witnesses to explain subjects that may not be obvious to a lay person. But this may lead to a subsequent dispute: who is qualified to be an expert?
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff offered an expert to explain why an elevator accident happened. The defendant argued the judge should not permit the expert to testify since he was not a professional engineer. The trial court agreed but the appeal court reversed, noting that the expert had testified in numerous other cases and had other qualifications. The court noted that the defendant could raise issues with his qualifications to the jury.
Cases like this illustrate the issues arising from designating an expert witness.