Practitioners should note that a general contractor may be held liable if it had control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

Case: Bridges v. Wyandanch Community Dev. Corp., NY Slip Op 07782 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Municipalities Law.

Practitioners should note that a finding of merit sufficient to vacate a plaintiff’s default does not preclude a subsequent granting of summary judgment to defendants.

Case: Bowman v. Beach Concerts, Inc., NY Slip Op 07747 (1st Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Labor Law.

Practitioners should note that prejudice can be mitigated by the trial court with the appropriate jury instructions.

Case: Pierre-Louis v. DeLonghi Am., Inc., NY Slip Op 07607 (2d Dept. 2009)

Monday’s issue: Motion practice.

Practitioners should note that a court exceeds its powers if, sua sponte, it reconsiders summary judgment motions after the case is dismissed by judgment.

Case: Merriwether v. Osborne, NY Slip Op 07602 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Trial practice.

Practitioners should note that the court is likely to consider the financial circumstances of both parties and the relative merit of the parties’ positions.

Case: Gruppuso v. Caridi, NY Slip Op 07590 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.

Practitioners should note that the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave where there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice.

Case: Erichson v. City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept., NY Slip Op 07580 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Family Law.

Practitioners should note that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract cannot be used to create terms that do not exist in the writing.

Case: Vanlex Stores, Inc. v. BFP 300 Madison II LLC, NY Slip Op 07677 (1st Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.

Practitioners should note that the mere hope or speculation that, during the discovery process, evidence sufficient to defeat the motion may be uncovered is insufficient to deny the motion.

Case: Corwin v. Heart Share Human Servs. of N.Y., NY Slip Op 07575 (2d Dept. 2009)

Monday’s issue: Contracts.

Practitioners should note that a plaintiff puts his or her medical condition in issue by alleging physical injury or mental anguish in the bill of particulars.

Case: Abdalla v. Mazl Taxi, Inc., NY Slip Op 07566 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.

Practitioners should note that the screening must provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to be in that location during a typical game.

Case: Correa v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07512 (1st Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Discovery.

Practitioners should note that where the dismissal order has never been served with notice of entry, there is no time limit on making a motion to vacate the dismissal.

Case: Donnelly v. Treeline Cos., NY Slip Op 07504 (1st Dept 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Torts.

Practitioners should note that the sanction is within the broad discretion of the court, and likely will not be disturbed on appeal.

Case: Emmitt v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07331 (1st Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.

Practitioners should note that the rule that ambiguous language will be construed against the drafter does not apply when the agreement resulted from negotiations between commercially sophisticated entities.

Case: Shadlich v. Rongrant Assoc., LLC, NY Slip Op 07394 (2d Dept. 2009)

Monday’s issue: Motion practice.

Practitioners should note that the court’s direction that defendant provide plaintiff with the identities of certain employees does not impinge on defendant’s right to select a witness to produce for deposition.

Case: Lopes v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 07379 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Contracts.

Practitioners should note that, where testimony concerning insurance comes out at trial, even if innocently by counsel, a postverdict motion for a mistrial may be granted, even where the offending testimony had been stricken from the record.

Case: Grogan v. Nizam, NY Slip Op 07375 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.

Practitioners should note that if plaintiff’s certificate of readiness incorrectly stated that all pretrial discovery, including physical examinations, had been completed, this is a misstatement of a material fact and the motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness will be granted.

Case: Amoroso v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07212 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.

Practitioners should note that there is an exception to the rule where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing.

Case: Schultz v. Shreedhar, NY Slip Op 07244 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.

Practitioners should note that there is immunity from liability for making good faith child protective reports, pursuant to § 419.

Case: Biondo v. Ossining Union Free School Dist., NY Slip Op 07368 (2d Dept. 2009)

Monday’s issue: Torts.

Practitioners should note that late service may be allowed, but plaintiff must move for leave of the court within one year and 90 days of the accrual date, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).

Case: McShane v. Town of Hempstead, NY 07235 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: School Law.

Practitioners should note that plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a business relationship between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s interference with that business relationship; (3) that the defendants acted with the sole purpose of harming plaintiff or used dishonest, unfair, improper or illegal means that amounted to a crime or an independent tort; and (4) that such acts resulted in the injury to plaintiff’s relationship with the third party.

Case: McHenry v. Lawrence, NY Slip Op 07234 (2d Dept. 2009)

Tomorrow’s issue: Municipalities Law.