2014

by

Happy Valentine’s Day! In keeping with what I hope will be a continued practice of keying blog posts to holidays, I present to you the case of Ashok v. Barnhart, 289 F. Supp. 2d 305 (EDNY 2003). In Ashok, plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to retaliation and a hostile work environment based on national…

Read More Allegedly “Humiliating” Valentine’s Day Poster Did Not Support Hostile Work Environment Claim
Share This:
by

In Quinones v. Cornell Univ, 2014 NY Slip Op 00882 [114 AD3d 472] (App. Div. 1st Dept. Feb. 11, 2014), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a decision by New York Supreme Court Judge Shlomo Hagler to disallow an untimely motion for summary judgment by defendant. Plaintiff sued Cornell alleging employment discrimination based upon national origin and…

Read More Employment Discrimination Defendant Denied Opportunity to File Untimely Summary Judgment Motion
Share This:
by

In Garcia v Neighborhood Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., the Appellate Division, First Department modified a lower court’s decision and held that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), the so-called “Scaffold Law” (but not with respect to the remaining claims). The court explained the law under Labor Law §…

Read More Foreseeable Building Collapse Results in Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs Under “Scaffold Law” (Labor Law § 240(1))
Share This:
by

If you see a banana peel on the stairs, don’t intentionally step on it. That’s the lesson from Betances v. 470 Audobon Ave. Corp., a recent New York Supreme Court decision. There, the plaintiff slipped on a banana peel and fell down the stairs. He sued, alleging that defendant was negligent in maintaining the staircase, and permitting…

Read More Step Away From the Banana Peel!
Share This:
by

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” These words, attributed to Stephen Hawking, find application in various fields. They are particularly applicable to a recent New York Post article entitled “NY’s worst law helps lawyers, kills construction”. Written by Rev. Jacques DeGraff, the article attacks NY’s “Scaffold Law” – New York…

Read More The Post’s Misguided Attack on the Scaffold Law
Share This:
by

So-called “at-will” employees in New York can be fired for any reason or no reason (just not an illegal reason, such as discrimination because of a protected characteristic). This rule applies even if, for example, the employer gives verbal assurances of job security. This principle was recently applied in Presler v Domestic & Foreign Missionary Socy.…

Read More Employee’s At-Will Status Precludes Her Claims Against Her Employer
Share This:
by

A recent decision from the Supreme Court, New York County, provides us with a practice tip: when making a motion to dismiss based on an alleged pleading – such as under CPLR 3211(a)(7) – be sure to attach a copy of the challenged pleading. In Anderson v. City of New York, plaintiff alleged race and…

Read More Failure to Attach Complaint Results in Denial of Motion to Dismiss Employment Discrimination Complaint
Share This:
by

In Oborski v. Marjam Supply Co., Inc., Supreme Court, Kings County Judge Francois Rivera offered what can fairly be characterized as motion practice “tips” (which are, really, a reminder to follow the court’s rules when engaging in motion practice): As a preliminary matter the court will discuss the motion papers and the deficiencies contained therein.…

Read More Motion Practice “Tips” From Brooklyn Judge
Share This:
by

In Auz v. Century Carpet, the Southern District of New York recently denied summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of liability in a car accident case occurring at or near the intersection of Second Avenue and 57th Street in Manhattan. “In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence under New York law,…

Read More Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment for Plaintiff in Car Accident Case
Share This:
by

In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Supreme Court – in an opinion authored by Justice Scalia – considered the meaning of the term “changing clothes” as used in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). That statute provides: Hours Worked. In determining for the purposes of [29 U.S.C. §§ 206,…

Read More The Supreme Court Tells Us What “Changing Clothes” Means
Share This: