Comments on Recent Cases: October 2023

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_Kevin_McCarthy#/media/File:United_States_House_of_Representatives,_October_3,_2023.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 Refuses to Dismiss Nuisance Claim Where Defendant Repeatedly Did Not Address Leak

A common claim in real estate disputes is nuisance.  That claim alleges that a defendant did something that interfered with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of their property.  It could be a loud noise, bright lights, noxious fumes, or anything else that causes a disruption without the defendant physically trespassing on the plaintiff’s property.

In New York, a claim for nuisance requires intent.  And so a defendant may move to dismiss a nuisance claim if the plaintiff fails to show the defendant intended to cause a nuisance.  But since defendants will rarely admit an intent to bother the plaintiff, a plaintiff may show intent by a defendant’s awareness of a nuisance and its failure to address it.  For example, in a recent case, the state appellate court in Manhattan affirmed the refusal to dismiss a nuisance claim where the defendant knew about plumbing leaks that affected the plaintiff and continuously refused to address them.

Cases like this illustrate how plaintiffs can demonstrate intent to preserve nuisance claims.

Court Refuses to Consider Hearsay Evidence in Opposition to Summary Judgment

When faced with a motion for summary judgment, a non-moving party usually needs to submit evidence to show a judge that she can win at trial.  And while the rules of evidence are a little different on summary judgment than at trial, there are some rules that still apply.

One such rule is that a party cannot rely solely on hearsay evidence.  For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Manhattan, a plaintiff sought summary judgment in a personal injury case.  The defendant submitted hearsay statements, a declaration by someone who heard someone else say the plaintiff used a scaffold he was told not to use.  The court held that these statements were inadmissible and thus could not support the denial of summary judgment.

Cases like this illustrate the standard for evidence judges consider when deciding whether to grant summary judgment.

Court Affirms Default Judgment Against Defendant Who Did Not Update Address

Plaintiffs may not have a responsibility to make sure defendants know about a lawsuit.  Instead, a plaintiff may get a default judgment against a defendant who never knew about the lawsuit if the plaintiff delivered the papers to the address the defendant provided, even if the defendant no longer uses that address.

This may seem unfair, since a defendant can miss the chance to present its defense.  For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a defendant appealed from a default judgment.  The plaintiff had sent the lawsuit papers to the defendant’s old address, but the defendant never updated their address to let the plaintiff know about the new address since doing so was not a “high priority.”  The court affirmed the default since it was the defendant’s duty to update the address.

Cases like this illustrate the importance of keeping current addresses for receiving potential lawsuit papers.

Court Applies Collateral Estoppel to Bar Relitigation of a Contract Clause

Once an issue is decided in a lawsuit, a party may not be able to raise the same issue in another.  Instead, litigants often have one shot to make their case and then may be barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from trying again.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an electrician argued that a clause in its contract that said that it could not recover damages for delays in in a construction company’s work was unenforceable.  But the appeals court recognized that the electrician made the same argument in another lawsuit against the same construction company and lost, and so it could not try the same argument again.

Cases like this illustrate how collateral estoppel applies in commercial disputes.

Court Affirms Guarantee Obligations Beyond Guarantor’s Expectation

I have seen several cases in which a plaintiff sues defendant for the acts of a third party.  Often, the defendant argues that the third party is to blame, but this argument may not work if the defendant signed a guarantee on behalf of the wrongdoer.

For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Manhattan, the officer of a company signed a guarantee for the company’s lease.  When the company failed to pay the lease, the landlord got a judgment against the officer.  The officer claimed he did not guarantee the lease’s extensions, leaving the company alone to pay the bills.  But the terms of the guarantees themselves said he was responsible for the extensions.

Cases like this illustrate the importance of guarantees.