| |
 |
| Home » Latest New York Law |
Latest New York Law |
| On this page, the latest
developments in New York case law are noted. The cases are
limited to the areas of law tested on the NY Bar Exam, and
occasionally on the MBE Exam. Sometimes the cases are cases of
first impression- meaning that they discuss an issue in law that
has not come up before. More often, the cases involve
illustrations of existing law. Most of the cases cited in these
pages are eventually incorporated in some form, into the
SmarterReview material. Thus, this page, should not be used as a
study aid (never memorize case names for the Bar exam). |
Tort:
Proximate Cause
4.28.8
Dagen v. Marriott International Inc.
Hotel not the proximate cause of a car crash after an evicted
guest crashed his car.
Plaintiff was kicked out of a Manhattan hotel shortly before
midnight on New Year’s eve due to alleged bad behavior. P
attempted to drive home but 3 hours and 90 minutes into his
drive home, he crashed his car while attempting to navigate a
highway exit. P admitted to driving 10 miles above the speed
limit and the road was wet and had an oil slick. P claimed that
the hotel was the proximate cause of the injuries he sustained
as the crash was caused by the hotels negligent action in
evicting him from the hotel at midnight on New Years Eve.
The court held that although the hotel may have been “unwise” in
evicting p at midnight on New Years Eve, and though the accident
would not have occurred had p not been evicted by the hotel, the
hotel was nonetheless not the proximate cause of the crash
because where the defendant’s action “merely furnished the
condition or occasion upon which plaintiff’s injuries were
received but did not put in motion the agency by which the
injuries were afflicted, no liability will attach.”
|
Workers
Compensation
Scope of Employment
5.8.8
MAROTTA v. TOWN & COUNTRY ELECTRIC
Stopping off for a ‘coffee break’ is within the scope of
employment
An electrician, arrived at work, discussed work plans, loaded
his truck and then drove to a work site. On the way, he stopped
off at a drive-through coffee shop, and while reaching for his
wallet, herniated a disk in his back, causing serious injury
that prevented him from returning from work for 6 months. The
issue before the court was whether in stopping off for coffee,
the electrician had deviated from his course of employment.
In order for an injury to be covered by Workers Compensation, it
must occur “during the course of employment” (Workers
Compensation Law §10), and it must occur during an activity that
is within the “scope of the employment”. (Workers Compensation
Law §21). If the injury occurs “during the course of
employment”, there is a rebuttable presumption that it occurred
within the “scope of the employment”. Evidence that the injury
occurred during a “purely personal pursuit” can rebut the
presumption that the injury occurred within the “scope of the
employment”.
The court held, a coffee break was a customary and reasonable
momentary break from work and was thus considered part of a
person’s work activities. Thus, the court held the injury was
covered by Workers Compensation. |
Criminal Procedure
What is considered a custodial
interrogation so as to trigger Miranda rights
5.13.8
People v. Chaaibi
Two police officers responded to a domestic violence call and
entered an apartment to find Mr. Chaaibi holding his daughter’s
hair in his hand and smashing her head against a wall. The
officers separated the father and daughter and asked Mr. Chaaibi
why he was smashing his daughter’s head against a wall, to which
he replied that it was his only way of controlling her. The
officers then asked Mr. Chaaibi why his daughter’s neck was red,
to which Mr. Chaaibi essentially gave the same response. At no
time prior to those two questions being asked, was Mr. Chaaibi
read his Miranda rights.
At Mr. Chaaibi’s trial for assault, his attorney moved to have
the incriminating statements (in which he admitted smashing his
daughter’s head against a wall) precluded on the grounds that
they were induced in a custodial setting without Mr. Chaaibi
being read his Miranda rights. The court agreed with this
argument and precluded the statements.
The court noted that a suspect did not have to be at a police
station or in a police car to be in custody. Rather, the
applicable standard was whether a reasonable person would have
felt they were in a custodial setting, which in turn depended on
the length of time spent with the police, the location and
atmosphere of the questions, whether the person has had his
movement restricted in any way by the police (among other
factors).
The court held that the circumstances in the instant case would
have led a person to believe he was in a custodial setting and
as such, Mr. Chaaibi’s Miranda rights were triggered and as
such, his were obtained in violation of his 4th Amendment
rights, and as such, the court precluded his incriminating
statements. |
Tort:
Defamation
8.27.8
Gotbetter v. Grinberg.
Truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation.
Pertinent statements made during legal proceedings are privileged.
Plaintiff attorney engaged defendant attorney in numerous frivolous motion practice which resulted in an award against plaintiff attorney for sanctions. Plaintiff attorney moved to reargue. In defendant's attorney opposition papers, he noted that plaintiff attorney was a "deadbeat judgment/debtor".
Plaintiff attorney sued defendant attorney for defamation arguing that his debts had been discharged by bankruptcy court. Defendant attorney successfully moved to dismiss the suit.
The court noted that at the time defendant attorney wrote the statement, the debts had not been discharged yet, and thus defendant attorney's statement that plaintiff attorney was a debtor was true at the time it was written.
Furthermore, the court noted that as the statement was contained in motion papers, it was protected by the privilege that extends to any statement made during the course of legal proceedings, as long as the statement is any way pertinent to the proceedings. The court held that the instant statement was related to the proceedings.
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
|