The RCBA Journal Legal News Blog

Apr 02

HOOVER v. NEW HOLLAND NORTH AMERICA INC, No. 36., April 01, 2014 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -

n an action arising from injuries sustained by plaintiff when she was caught and dragged into the rotating driveline of a tractor-driven post hole digger distributed and sold by defendants, defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, where plaintiff raised triable issues of fact concerning the defective design of the safety shield that were sufficient to defeat summary judgment based on substantial modification by the owner of the digger.

People v. Johnson, 43, April 01, 2014 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -

Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of cocaine should have been granted and the indictment is dismissed, where: 1) defendant was arrested for disorderly conduct, searched, and found to be in possession of cocaine; 2) the evidence was insufficient to provide the arresting officer with probable cause to believe that defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or was reckless in creating a risk of those consequences; and thus, 3) defendant was entitled to suppression of the cocaine because the arrest that was the predicate for the search was made without probable cause.

433 Sutton Corp v. Broder, 123 SSM 4, April 01, 2014 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -

The Appellate Division erred in determining that defendant was the prevailing party; accordingly, defendant is not entitled to attorneys’ fees.

IN RE: the Association for a Better Long Island, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 38, April 01, 2014 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -

ismissal of a challenge to 2010 amendments to the regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) pertaining to the protection of endangered and threatened species is: 1) reversed in part, where petitioners can proceed with three of their procedural claims because petitioners have asserted a concrete interest in the matter the agency is regulating, and a concrete injury from the agency’s failure to follow procedure, and the procedural claims are ripe; but 2) affirmed in part, where petitioners lack standing with respect to the substantive causes of action that are not yet ripe as there has been no final agency action inflicting concrete harm.

Melcher v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 24, April 01, 2014 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -

In an action for attorney deceit against defendants law firm and attorney, the Appellate Division’s decision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded, where: 1) claims for attorney deceit are subject to the six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213(1); and thus, 2) plaintiff’s action is timely.

People v. Sage, 32, April 01, 2014 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -

Defendant’s conviction for manslaughter in the first degree is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the evidence created a factual issue as to whether the People’s key witness was an accomplice; 2) the failure to instruct the jury on “accomplice-in-fact” was not harmless.

Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, No. 12-462 -

In an action alleging that defendant-airlines violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing when it terminated plaintiff’s membership in its frequent flyer program, the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the claim was not preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the ADA preempts a state-law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it seeks to enlarge the contractual obligations that the parties voluntarily adopt; 2) plaintiff’s claim clearly has a connection with or reference to airline prices, routes, or services; and 3) because plaintiff’s implied covenant claim seeks to enlarge his contractual agreement with defendants, it is preempted by the ADA.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, No. 12-536 -

In an action in which plaintiffs alleged that aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees contained in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), were unconstitutional under the First Amendment, the district court’s decision granting the government’s motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded, where the aggregate limits are invalid under the First Amendment.

Mar 28

People v. Kasse, 124 SSM 5, March 27, 2014 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -

The misdemeanor complaint was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant engaged in unlicensed general vending in violation of section 20-453 of the New York City Administrative Code

Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC, 16, March 27, 2014 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -

Summary judgment in favor of defendant should be granted, where plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact to rebut the prima facie showing made by defendant that her claimed personal injuries were not caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold.