New York Court of Appeals Decisions Updates

New York Court of Appeals Decisions Updates

Issue 1

Sophisticated Parties Held to Language of Agreements; No Breach of Fiduciary Duty Where Allegation of Trust and Reliance Is Not Reasonable; Residential Condominiums Differ from Residential Cooperatives in Responsibility for Injuries to a Contractor’s Employee; Express Choice of New York Law in Contract Trumps Conflict of Laws Analysis; Requirement that Health Club Have Defibrillator on Premises Does Not Create a Duty to Use the Device; Partnership Law Permits One Party to Unilaterally Withdraw from Oral Agreement if Venture Is Not for a Definite Term or a Particular Undertaking; Measure of Damages for Breach of Contract to Sell Real Property Is Enunciated; Tax Law Subjecting On-Line Retailers, without a Physical Presence in the State, Is Not Unconstitutional;

Issue 2

During April, May, and June of the 2013 Term, the Decisions by the Court of Appeals relating to civil matters extensively focused on issues of construction relating to the New York State constitution and statutes on the one hand, and insurance-related matters, on the other.

Issue 3

During the last several months the New York Court of Appeals addressed a wide variety of unique and interesting legal issues, including the claim of a German museum to recover a 3,000 year old tablet that disappeared at the end of War II ; the right of a judgment debtor to sue a bank that allegedly failed to follow correct procedures in serving restraining notices; the right of a non-resident to obtain a hand gun license; the legal distinction between different types of commercial cleaning services; and the constitutionality of charging a hotel room occupancy tax for online booking services.

Issue 4

Over the last several months, the New York Court of Appeals addressed a panoply of insurance-related issues relating, inter alia, to an insurers’ duty to defend; the statute of limitations for a claim under a fire insurance policy; and the special relationship between an insured and its broker. The Court also addressed diverse questions relating to medical monitoring and the enforceability of an auction sales agreement.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap