You are on page 1of 30

JURISDICTION

CPLR301
InpersonamjurisdictionNYhasinpersonamjurisdictionoveranyoneinNY,regardlessofwhythey
arethere,UNLESSyoufraudulentlyinducethepersontocometothestate.
Burnhamv.SuperiorCourtofCA
Thereisinpersonamgeneraljurisdictionofanyindividualthatcanbefoundwithinits
borderandthencanretainjurisdictiononceheisservedinthatstatenomatterhow
transienthisvisitisdoesnotviolatedueprocessaslongasyouarefoundinthestate
Merigonev.Seaboard
usuallysomeonejustcomesforlawsuitthencantservehimsothatnonnewyork
citizenscanattendcourtwithoutfearofavailinghimselfofnyjurisdication
butinthiscasethesuitaroseoutofthingsthathappenedinNYsoeventhoughPwas
hereforanunrelatedsuit,becausehecouldhavebeenservedinNJ(oranywhereelse)
broughttoNYhecanobviouslyalsobeservedinny.
servicedoesn'tworkiftheonlyreasonheissusceptibletoserviceisbeingpresent
fortheunrelatedsuitbutiftheyareotherwisesusceptibletoserviceinnythenits
ok
CPLR310:Personalserviceuponapartnership
FirstAmericanjurisdictioncanbeacquiredoverapartnershipifapartnerisinny,evenif
thepartnerisnotaresidentordomiciliary
o Pricewaterhouse(PW)USoriginalcasebroughtinfederalcourtindc
o TurnsoutthePwanteddocsthatwererelevanttocasebutthedocswerefromPWUK
nd
o 2cir.Iftherearetwoseparatecorporationthentwoseparatelegalentitiesthenyoucant
givejurisdictionbasedonthat,BUTbecauseNewtonremainedaUKpartnerinNY,the
NYcourtnowhasjurisdictionovertheentirePWUKpartnershipthroughthe
presenceoftheUKpartnerwhoisphysicallyinNYbec301(a)personalserviceupon
personsconductingabusinessasapartnershipmaybemadebypersonallyservingthe
summonuponanyofthem
PresenceofCorporationwhendotheyhavejurisdiction
GeneralIfyourincorporatedinNYyouhavepresence
SpecificCorpthatisauthorizedtodobusinessinnyandsuitarisesfromactionsinthe
state
Goodyear
o childrenkilledinParisparentsinNorthCarolinawanttosue
o suinggoodyearnoproblembctheyarepresentinNY
o Turkishsubsidiarymadethetirewhichallegedlycreatedtheaccident
o wantgoodyearsubsidiarytobeunderNYjurisdictiontheywereinturkey,france,and
luxemberg
o ConnectionallegedthatthereweretiresfromturkeythoughstreamofcommerceinNY
o Acourtmayassertgeneraljurisdictionoveraforeigncorporationwhenthe
affiliationwiththestatebecomesosystematicandcontinuousastorenderthe
corporationessentiallyathomeinthestate

Heretherewasnotenoughofaconnectionbcnothingforspecificjurisdictionbcthetire
wasmadeinturkeyandtheaccidentwasinturkeyandtherewasn'tcontinuousand
systematiccontactsbetweenthecompanyandthestate

OVERRULED!!!Tauzav.SusquehannaCoalCo,CARDOZO
o companyincorporatedinPA
o officeinNYsolicitationoffice
o it'saregularandsystematicpartofthebusiness
o ithadcustomersinNYbutgutsofoperationswasPA
o thejurisdictiondoesnotflowfromaspecifictransactionbcitisnotfromthebusiness
thatwasdoneinNYbutbctherewassystematicandregularbusinesswithinthestate
o thecorporationishereintheformofanagentthatishereandserviceuponhimis
serviceontheprinciple(310(d))
Justhavinganagentisntenoughitneedstobethatsubstantialandregular
businesswasdonethere
Bryantv.FinnishNationalAirline
o Therewasaplaneaccidentinparis
o DisFinishcompanywithanofficeinny
o Thatofficeisjustgeneratingbusinessbutdoesn'tflytonybuteventhoughtheydon'tsell
here
o theairlinewas"doingbusiness"intheStateofNewYork.Althoughtheforeign
airlinecompanydidnotdirectlysellticketsinNewYork,theforeignairlinecompany
maintainedanoffice,advertised,employedseveralpeople,hadabankaccount,and
facilitatedtheticketbusinessoftheforeignairlinecompanyintheStateofNew
York.
DaimlerAG.v.Baumer134S.Ct.746
o parguethatgenjurisdictionshouldbeanywherewsystematic,continuousand
substantialbusiness.CourtholdsNOthatwillbetoofarreaching
o BusinessneedstobesosystematicthatitisessentiallyathomeinNY
o ThecourtsaysWedonotforeclosethatinanexceptionalcasewithoutPPBorincorp
maystillgetjurisdictionifsosubstantialastorenderitathomeinNY
o NOMORETAUZA
Dollarco.v.CanadianCarjustbcpresidentisvisitingUSthatisnotenoughtogivethe
statejurisdictionhowever,ifthecorporationisathomeinthestatethenanyagentor
officercanbeservedinthestateandyoucangivenoticeofjurisdictiontothecorporate
officer
Delagiv.VolkswagenAGofWolfsburgGermany
o SomeonefromnygetsinjuredingermanybycarmadeinGermany
o Forgeneraljurisdictionitsnotenoughthatamanufacturersproductendsupinthe
forumstate
o ifthesubisinNY(meaningthatNYhasgenjurisdictionoverit)thatisnotenough
forNYtohavgen.jurisdictionovertheparent,unlessthesubisreallyjusta
departmentoftheparentandtheparenthasfullcontroloverthesub.

OVERRULED!!!Lauferv.OStrow
o Thesuitisagainsttheindividualagentandthesolicitingcompanyworksfor
o ThesolicitingcompanyisincorpinNJanditsPPBinNJ
o ThecompanyisnotlicensedtodobusinessinNY
o AgentsjobwastosolicitfurnitureordersforNorthCarolinacompany
o Thecourtholdthat'sbctheindividualwasclearlyjustanagentandwasnotdoing
businessofhisownbehalfthestatedoesn'thavejurisdictionoverhimindividually
butifhewasactingonhisownbehalftheywould
o butcompanyhasclearsubstantialcontactwithNYandthereforeNYdoeshave
jurisdictionoverthem
NOTE:probalsodestroyedbyDaimler
ConsenttoJurisdiction
ApersonorentitycangivetheirconsenttobesubjectjurisdictionofNYbeforeacasearises
Eitheryoucanappointaagenttoreceiveserviceorhaveaforumselectionclause
OR
IftheyappearinNYanddonotaffirmativelystatethatthereisnojurisdictionthentheyare
subjecttothejurisdictionofthestate
Ex:LetssayUSandFrenchcompanyentercontractwhichstatestheyaresubjecttoUSjurisdiction
consentok
BossaforumselectionclausesayinganylawsuitmustbebroughtinMinnesotashouldbe
enforced
CPLR302(a)SpecificPersonalJurisdiction
Fishberg
ThePisalawyerinNYandtheDisapastclientwhoisnotinNYandhasnotpaidhisbills
Held:NycouldproperlyexercisedpersonaljurisdictionoverdefendantpursuanttoCPLR302(a)
(1)bctheiractivitiesinretainingplaintiffanyattorneysituatedinnytorepresentthemin
Oregonwerepurposefulandasufficientnexusexistsbetweenthatretentionandtheinstant
claimcamefromallegedlyunpaidlegalfees
Cplr302(a)(1)jurisdictionispropereventhoughthedefendantnevercametonewyorksolongas
theiractivitiesinnywerepurposefulandthereisasubstantialrelationshipbetweenthen
transactionandtheclaimasserted
PurposefuliswhenitisintentionalandtheygettheprotectionofNYlawsjustonephone
callororder
Sidepoint:appealabilityinNY
infederalcourtscanonlyappealsomethingthatendedthecaseex.Grantingofsummary
judgmentnotdenyingitbcthenthecasecontinues
ButinNYstatecanappealvirtuallyanythingcanappealdiscoveryordersdenialofmotionto
dismiss
Appellatedivisiontocourtofappealsiftherulingofappdivendsthecasesofinalorderthen
theappdivisioncangiveleavetoappealorcourtofappealscangiveleavetoappeal

Onlytimeyoucanappealasarighttoctofappealsiswhentherewasafinalorderandtwo
dissentsintheappdivision
Anonfinaljudgmentonethatdoesntendthecasecanonlygettoctofappealsthrough
permissionofappdivision

Deutschebankcase
deutschebankhadasecuritiesdeptthatenteredintotransactionwithMontanaagency
theycommunicatethroughemailetcandenterintoatransaction
sotheyenteredNYbyknowinglyinitiatingandpursuingthisnegotiationwithNY
person
SoavailedthemselvesofNYelectronicallyandtheCOAarosefromthatofNY
BIGTAKEAWAY:looktoseewhoinitiatedthecontact,ifitwasanongoing
relationship,andifthecustomerissophisticated
note:thecaseisstrongestwhenthereissometypeofphysicalpresenceinNYex:anagent
comestoNYtosignpapershoweverthisphysicalpresenceisnotverycommon
ParadiseProductsCorp.v.AllMarkEquipmentCo.,Inc.
defendantsold500galloncopperkettlefromstocktoplaintiff,
EventhoughdefendantknewthatkettlewasboundforNYPpickedupthekettlesinNJ
Knowledgethataproductmaybedestinedforaparticularforumisinsufficienttosustain
jurisdiction.
Here,titletothepropertypassedinNJ
TheyhaventpurposefullyavailedthemselvesofNYeventhoughthesuit
arisesoutofacontactinNYthetransactiondidnottakeplaceinNYtitledid
notpassinny
Lamarca
o Disagarbagehaulingmanufacturer.TheymanufactureinVirginiaandPisanewyork
residentwhoisinjuredinNY
o ThetortiousactisthefaultymanufacturingwhichtookplaceinVAbuthurtsomeonein
NY
302(a)(3)(ii)theyknewthetruckwouldendupinny,gotlotsofbusinessfromNY,and
obviouslyitwasinterstatecommerce
Factors:
1)committedtortiousactoutsidestate
2)causeofactionarisesfromthatact
3)theactcausedinjurywithinthestate
4)thedexpectedorshouldhavereasonablyexpectedtheacttohaveconsequencein
thestate
5)dderivedsubstantialofrevenueofinterstateorinternationalcommerceinorder
toavoidbusinesswhoarereallylocalnottobereachedbythelongarmstatute
VehicleandTrafficLaw253Incaraccidentthereisalawthatsaysthatisitconsideredthatyou
haveappointedthesecretaryofstateasyouragentsoyoucanbesuedforanycaraccidentinNYand
thenthePcanservethesecofstateanditisthesameasiftheyhadservedtheDdirectly

Sybronv.Wexel
o Thereisacompanywithadivisioninnyandanemployeeofthatnydivisionleavesand
goestoacompetitorwasinNJ
o Commitsatortiousactincludesthreateningtocommitatortiousact
o Threateningtodivulgetradesecretseconomicinjury
o IsthereaninjuryinNY?Itsnotenoughtosaytheyareincorpthereyouneedtoshow
thatthebusinessinNYwillactuallybetheoneeffectedPwasinNYtheeconomic
injurythreatenstoeffectNYcustomers,anditstemsfromtradesecretsgatheredinny
o Thecourtdiscussesboth203(a)(3)(i)and(ii)butonlyneedsone
Waldenv.Fiori
therewere2gamblersandtheywerestoppedinAtlantaandalltheirmoneytaken
itwasreturned7monthslater
theysuedinNevadawheretheyweregoing/liveandwheretheinjuryoccurred
TheCourtheldthatthedistrictcourtinNevadacouldnotexercisepersonaljurisdiction
overWaldenbecausehelackedcontactswithNevada.
TheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentrequiresthatanonresident
defendanthaveasubstantialconnectionwiththestateinwhichheissued.
Thisconnectionmustarisefromthecontactsthatthedefendanthimselfcreates;yetall
ofWaldensconductoccurredinGeorgia.
ThefactthatFioreandGibsonwereinjuredinNevadawasinsufficienttoestablish
personaljurisdictionoverWaldentheironlyconnectiontoNevadawasthatthey
chosetoresidethereduringthemonthsthemoneywasseized.
thisisabigproblemwith203(a)(3)(ii)bcnowtheyaresayingthatDalso
needsminimumcontactstherebutthegarbagecaseisstillok

OWNINGREALPROPERTY302(a)(4)
TebedovNYE
Ownsusesorpossespropertywithinthestate
ResidentsinFLHADownedpropertyinNYandhadanobligationtosellapieceto
thePbutinsteadsoldtosomeoneelse
Thecourtsaidyesjurisdictionbcnotunfairsincedisputearisesfrompropertyyou
owned
Onlyissueisthatthelanguageofstatuteispresenttenserelationshipbtwnthedand
thepropertyatthetimetheactionarose
Internetbasedcommerceifitsjustinformationalprobablythereisnojurisdictionbutifusell
intoNYthenyouprobablyhaveavailedyourselfofjurisdictionwearegoingtolooktoseethe
levelofinteractivityandcommercialnaturebetweenthehostcomputerandthepersonwithinNY
Quasiinremjurisdiction
Pre1977:ifaplaintiffwantedtosueadefanddidn'thaveinpersonamjurisdictiontheycouldhave
jurisdictionthroughpropertythatthedownsinthestateevenifthepropertywasunrelatedtothe
suitbutonlytotheamountofmoneythepropertywasworth
- Pcanrecoveruptotheamountoftheseizedproperty

AndDcouldveputinalimitedappearancesowasonlysubjecttotheamountoftheproperty
IfsomeonehadowedmoneytoDthenPcouldservethatpersonifinthatstatebcthedebtis
consideredpropertyoftheDasseeninharrisvbalk
- SothedebtfollowsthedebtorsocancollectuptowhatCowesDifserveC
Post1977theUSsaysthisisaviolationofdueprocesstodefendinNYjustbcthereissomeother
propertyinNYandthatisntenoughforquasiinremjurisdictionNowyouneedtoshowthe
propertyseizedhasarelationshiptothecase
Shaifersaidwearechangingthedoctrinewerenotpermittingquasiinremunlessminimum
contactsstandardaresatisfiedwithrespecttothepersonwhosepropertywasseizednotgood
enoughthatjusthadpropertytherethatcouldbeattached
Soseizedpropertymusthassomecontacttothelitigationthisisntinpersonamsoclearly
notenoughcontactstohavehadgeneralorspecificunderother302ideasbchavingtousethis
moreobscuretheory

BancovArtoc
Bttwoforeignbanksambrosianolentmoneytoartocandtheytransmittedthismoneyby
puttingmoneyinaNYbank
SomoneyendsupinNY
Sotheytrytoassertquasiinremtheycouldntgetinpersonam
TheyattachedthebankaccountthatwastheVERYsubjectofthesubjectoflitigationnotjust
somerandombankaccountthathappenstobeinthestate
IsthisenoughunderShaifer?arethereminimumcontacts?Thecourtsaysprettyobvious
thatthisisenoughbcitistheveryreasontheyrehavingthedisputethebankaccount
attachediswhatisbeinglitigated
302(b)MATRIMONIALLITIGATION
maritalrestheoryisthateachspousecarrieswithhim/herthestatusofmarriageandthatisthesameas
inremjurisdictionsameasadjudicatingovertherealpropertyinthestate=alegalfiction
HYPO:
CouplemarriedinFLhaveneverbeentoNY
ThewifewantsoutandgoestoNY
wifelivedinNYfor2yrsandwantstogetadivorce
okbcthemaritalresfollowsthespouse
CARRv.CARR
- Aftermandieshissecondwifeisgettingbenefits
- thefirstwifewantstoinvalidatetheexpartedivorcethathegotfromherinHonduras
- thequestionis:whoisthesurvivingwidow?
- Thesecondwifehasnocontactsinny
- Firstwifemovedtonyaftertheygotdivorced
- Thefirstwifewantstobringsuittoconfirmshesstillmarriedbutherhusbandisdeadand
thereisnocasebcmaritalresdoesn'textendafteroneofthespousesdie
- Becausethatpropertyrightnolongerexiststhereisdefnoinremjurisdiction
- FN2Whatifthehusbandwasstillalive?Iftheywereconfirmingthemarriagethenitisiffy
whetherthereisevenamarriageandsotherewontbejurisdiction,butifyouareseekingto

dissolvethemarriageeveryoneagreesthereisamarriageandthereforethereismaritalres
andinremjurisdiction

CPLR327FORUMNONCONVENIENS
- ThecourtHASjurisdictionbutthinkthatanotherforumismoreconvenient
o thereismorethanoneforuminwhichtheycouldbringthecase,andthecourtis
sayingitmakesmoresensethatadiffcourtwillhearit
MARTINv.MEITHER
- ThereisanaccidentinChautauquainupstatenyandbothpartiesareCanadian
- ThePbroughtthesuitinnycounty
- NYstatehadjurisdictionbcNYlongarmstatutemotorvehiclelaw
- Venueproperinnycountybcof503(a)ifneitherpartyresidesinnyandjurisdictioninNY
stateisproperthePcanpickanycountywithinNY
- TheDwantstotrythiscaseincanada
- Plaintiffwantedtokeepthecaseinnytheaccidenthappenedinny,hospitalinny,no
subpeonaofwitnessinCanada,policeinnyandthecourtagrees
- ThenDsaysokthenatleastbringthecasetochautiquacounty
- ThenthePlawyerssayswedon'tneedtobetherethecasecanbetriedanywhere(literallythe
oppositeargumentsfrombefore)
- Thecourtofappealssaidwerenotgivinganyweighttotheaffidavitsbctheycontradict
eachotherandtheaccidentoccurredinnybutitsnotenoughforustomaintainthecaseso
theysendittoCanada
- HadthePlawyersjustallowedthecasetobeinchaitiquathentheywouldhavekeptthecase
Bewersv.AmericanHomeProducts
- ThePwantedthecasetobetriedintheUS.
- ThedecisiontosellandmarketintheUKwasmadeinNYandthePPBwasinnysothereis
def.jurisdictioninny
- However,thePareUkcitizenslivethere,theproductwasmadethere,marketedthereandall
witnessesthereandthereforetheUKhasabiggerstakeinthiscase
- Therefore,thebestjurisdictionistheUK
- Whencourtdismissesonforumnonconveneinsgroundstheydismisswithconditions
thattheotherjurisdictionmusthearthecaseotherwiseitcancomebacktotheUS
Hartv.GM
- ThedirectorsofGMboughtPerotoutandthenshareholderssueforbreachoffiduciaryduty
andwaste
- OthersuitswerebroughtindelewareDelewarelawwouldgovernbcthelawofstateof
incorpalwaysgoverns
- ThissuitwasbroughtinNYhowever,thePwasatexasresidentsoreallydoesn'thave
goodreasontoinvolvethemselves
- Alsowheretherearemanyforumsthatcasescouldbebroughtinwedon'twantmanydiff
outcomes

Delaware,notNewYork,whichhasaninterestsuperiortothatofallotherStatesindeciding
issuesconcerningdirectors'conductoftheinternalaffairsofcorporationscharteredunder
Delawarelaw.
ManyStatesotherthanDelawaremayclaimsomeinterestinthistransaction,noneofthem,
inthecontextofthederivativeclaimsraised,areinapositiontoovercomethepresumptionin
favorofthelawoftheStateofincorporation.
GivenDelaware'sparamountinterest

Section503:Venuebasedonresidence
AppellateCourt:theresidenceofapartyturnsonwhetherhehasasignificantconnectionwsome
localityinnyasaresultoflivinginthestateforsomelengthoftimeinthecourseofayear
Section510:Groundsforchangeofplaceoftrial
Section511:Changeofplaceoftrial
503laysoutwherethereispropervenue
510thensayswhenyoucanmovevenueseitherbcthevenuetobeginwithwasimproperorbc
thecaseshouldbebroughtinanimpropervenue
511sayshowtoswitchthevenueunder510.
SERVICE
- since 1992- an action is commenced by filing papers with the court and
you have to make service within 120 days
- in NY you can file 1 of 2 sets of papers together- summons and complaint
- in ny you can file summons with notice- even tho you havent filed a
complaint yet- this tolls the statute of limitations
CPLR Section 308: Personal service upon a natural person CASEON308(1)
Macciav.Russo
- Negligencecasepre1992soneedtoservethecomplainttocommencetheaction
- Theprocessserverservedtheson
- theplaintiffwaswiththeprocessserveratthetime
- youservedthewrongpersonsoitdoesn'tmatterthatthepgotthepapersaminlater
- ifyoudon'tfollowtheprocedureitdoesn'tmatterifthepapersendedupproperlyintheright
placetheserviceisinvalidandunderCPLR308(1)youneedtoservetheactual
defendant
CASEONCPLR308(2)(youdon'tneedtodo308(1)ifyoudo308(2))
Bossuk v. Steinberg
- the person who was home wouldn't open the door
- the server can leave the service outside the door a long as the
person on the other side is aware of whats happening and a copy is
sent
ifthedefendanthimselfdidn'tanswerthedoortheservercanleaveitandthenmail
- ifaprocessserverisbarredfromgoingtoaptthenthedoormanisok
- ifgivingtobusinessitneedstobeplainenvelopewpersonalandconfidentialwrittenonit

CASEONCPLR308(3)
Edwardv.greenenterprisesv.Manillow
- tryingtoservemannillow
- gavetomannilowsagent
- andwhileitmakessensetogiveittotheagentofpersontheabilitytogivetoanagentis
onlyforcorporationsanditisforthelegislaturetomaketheruleforindividualsagentstoo
- iftheygaveittotheagentandmailedittohislastknownresidencethiswouldworkifitwas
theactualplaceofbusinessunder308(3)
CASEONCPLR308(4)canonlyusethiswhenservicewastriedunder308(1)and308(2)
Feinsteinv.Bergner
- theDgotmarriedandmovedandtheptriedtoserveattheparentshouseandmailedtothe
housetoothemailingwasokbcitwaslastknownresidence
- theproblemwasnoticeneededtobeattachedtotheplaceheactuallylived/workedandthat
wasn'ttherightplace

CASEONCPLR308(5)
Dobkinv.Chapman
thedefendantscantbefound
inonecasetheywantedtogetthemoneyfromtheinsurancecompaniesandtheothercasetheywant
moneyfromMVAIC(motorvehicleaccidentindemnicafationcorp.=whensomeonedoesn'thave
insuranceandshouldhavehadinsuranceMVAICpays)
thecourtsaysthattherewasextensiveduediligenceandstillitservicecouldnotbeeffectuatedthe
D.C.saysthatserviceisimpracticableundertheothersectionsandthePshouldsendserviceusingreg.
mailtotheaddressestheyhavefortheD
theA.C.saysthatthisisreasonableandthereneedstobebroaddiscretion.
Section311:Personalserviceuponacorporation
Colbertv.internationalsecurity
- Theonlypersonattheofficewhenprocessservershowsupwasasecretary
- ThePsaythatthepersontheyservedwasmanagingagent
- itcantbethatanypersonaloneisamanagingagent
- thecourtsaysthatshewastoofardownonthetotempoletocountasanagentshewasn't
designatedasanagent,andhadnocontrol
Fashionpageprocessserverwalksinandsaysthathehaspapersandprocessservergoestothesecond
receptionistandshesaysshesauthorizedtotakeit.thisisgoodservicebcshehadbeendoingthisforyrs
andthebossauthorizedhertotaketheservice

Section312A:Personalservicebymail
312ayoucanmailasummonsandcomplainttoDbutthisisntvaliduntilthedordslawyer
sendsbackreceiptofserviceandtheonlypenaltyisthemmaybehavingtopayforutoserve
anotherwayVERYRARE
Section313:Servicewithout(akaoutside)thestategivingpersonaljurisdiction

unlessyouareservingunder312a(bymail),onlyapersonwhois18older,whoisnotapartyto
thesuit,mayservethedefendant.

STATUTEOFLIMITIONS
203. Method of computing periods of limitation generally
Tofindthetimelimitinaparticularonemustdecide:
o 1)whichstatute(211217)isrelevant
o 2)whenthetimeaccrues
o 3)ifthereisanyapplicabletolling
Usually:
o Ucc4yrs
breachofwarrantyfromthetimethetimeofdelivery
breachofsalewhenthebreachoccursevenifdonesecretly
o Contract6yrsfromthetimethebreachoccursevenifitoccurssecretly
o Torts3
o Medicalmalpractice2.53
213.Actionstobecommencedwithinsixyears:wherenototherwiseprovidedfor;oncontract
basedonfraud
214.Actionstobecommencedwithinthreeyears:Torts
Chase
- p is a manufacturer and hired d to get insurance coverage
- d got a policy for P and there was a storm and the insurance didn't cover
the storm
- p is suing for negligence and breach of contract bc the insurance didn't
cover
- the P is trying to get it under breach of contract so there is a 6 yr
of statute and the d is trying to get it under malpractice bc under
214(6) it would be 3 yr statute of limitation
- The court makes a big deal about what is a professionalo Extensive formal learning and training
o Licensure and regulation
o Code of conduct
o Standards beyond those in marketplace
o Discipline for violating standards
- Here 214(6) does not apply bc insurance brokers arent professionals
so they
apply 214(4) and 213(2) for breach of contract 6yr SOL
Cubito
- architect is being sued for design of the laundry room
- d says it should accrue from date of the completion of the job
- the A.D. says no- its from the time of the injury under 214(6) [wiener:
kinda crazy bc hes on the hook forever]
- the general rule: the SOL accrues from the time of injury

when does SOL start running on cross-claims? From the time the D
has to shell out money to P- bc that is when they would look to third
party for indemnification

Victorson v. Bock laundry


- P wanted 214(3) and D wanted UCC 2725 bc of diff rules on who can sue
(under UCC on those in privity of contract can sue) and when it applies
even tho 214 is 3 yrs and UCC is 4 yrs
- for product liability- the time accrues from injury under 214(4) and (5) and
SOL is 3 yrs
- product liability is tort NOT contract
SolomonR.GuggenheimFoundationv.lubell

mslubellboughtchigalingoodfaith

thepaintingwasstolenin60s

theydidn'tfindouttilllate60s/70sbcthemuseumjustsaidmissing

whentheyfindoutshehasitaskforitandshesaynoandshesaysthatthere
shouldbelatches(whichshortenstheSOL=anequitablebartodelay)bctheydidn'tuse
reasonableduediligencetofindtheirproperty

ReplevinpropertypossessedbyDandsupposedlybelongingtoP

3yrsstatuteunder214torecoverchattel

howdoumeasurethe3yrs?

ifagenuinegoodfaithpurchaserhasitthentheSOLstartswhentheowner
demandsitbackanditisrefusedbcthetortistherefusalbcyoucantget
goodtitlefromathief
o butwathieftheSOLstartstorunfromthetimeofthetheft
Caffaro

thecourtsaidnostatuteoflimitationsbccouldaddthathedied
butwehavelatchesanequitablebartodelay

214a.Actionformedical,dentalorpodiatricmalpracticetobecommencedwithintwoyearsandsix
months;exceptions
Thelegislaturechangedmedicalmalpracticefrom3to2.5yrsfromdatedoctorscrewedup
Butifthereisaforeignobjectthen1yrfromdiscoveryoftheobject
Labarbera
- Surgeryinmay1986docwassupposedtoremoveplasticstent10dayslateranddidn't
- Wenttonewdocwhofounditin92andsuitbroughtwithin1yr=6/93
- Thisisfarafter2.5yearsfrom1986soweknowyouwouldhavetofallunderforeignobject
andnotmedmal.
- Couldtheyuseforeignobjectdoctrine?Nothestentwasleftinforhealingpurposesand
theseareconsideredfixationdevicesandnotforeignobjects
- Aforeignobjectisonethatisneg.leftinthepatientsbodywithoutanyintended
continuingtreatmentpurpose(akaclampsorasponge)

Goldsmith
- thisisahipreplacementin73
- hebrokehishipreplacementin81
- suitbroughtin83againstdocandmanufacturer
- usuallystatutebeginstorunwhenmalpracticeoccursand2.5yearsfromthen
- thisisntaforeignobjectbcforeignobjectdoesn'tincludeprosthetic,aid,ordevice
- thecourtsaysitrunsfromtimeofactakawhenneg.occursandthelegislaturehasn't
changedthat,socan'tsuedoc
- whataboutthemanufacturer?thisisaproductliabilitysototallydiffoutcomethenfor
thedoc.thisiswithin3yearsoftheinjuryhappens
catheterwasafixationdevicebcwasplacedinpatientwithintentionthatitwillremainto
serveapurpose
Chiropractor,psychologist,andoptometristsarentconsidereddocsunlessheisrecommended
byadoc/workingwithateamofdoctors
- Anurseispartofmedicalteamsoispartofmedicalso2.5years
- Ifahospitalissuedis3yrsbcnotmed.Mal.Justneg.business
Withmed.malpracticethestatutedoesn'tstarttorunaslongasthereiscontinuouscare(or
legalmatter)ofaparticularissue

soits2.5yearsfromthetimethedocstoppedtreatingthat
issue
that'swhyalawfirmwritestosaythatwehaveconcludedourrepresentationof
matterxbutstilllawyerintermsofyandz
Simcuski
- Pallegesthatadocconcealedhismalpracticeandthereforeunder213(8)theSOLis
tolledbcFRAUDestoppel
- Sheallegedneg.medmalandfraudulentlymisinformingpastoherphysicalcondition
- Thecriticalissueisifthemedmalisbarredusuallyitwouldbebcitsmorethen3yrsfrom
injury,however,shecouldn'thavediscoveredituntil6yrslaterbcitwasconcealedfromher
andshereliedonthemisrepresentationandthereforeshewouldgetequitableestoppelaslong
assheshowssheusedduediligenceandbroughtitwithinareasonabletime
- Forfrauditsunder213(8)anactionbaseduponfraud;thetimewithinwhichtheactionmust
becommencedshallbe[fig1]thegreaterofsixyearsfromthedatethecauseofaction
accruedortwoyearsfromthetimetheplaintifforthepersonunderwhom[fig2]theplaintiff
claimsdiscoveredthefraud,orcouldwithreasonablediligencehavediscoveredit.
- Theyhaventdecidedifshemettheduediligencebctheydidn'thaveenoughfactsyet

214c.Certainactionstobecommencedwithinthreeyearsofdiscovery
Undersubsection2youhave3yearstobringtheclaimfromthetimeofdiscoverytheinjury,or
whenitreasonablyshouldhavebeendiscovered.Undersubsection4youhave1yearfromthetime
ofthediscoveryofthecauseoftheinjury,aslongasyoudiscoverthecausewithin5yearsof

discoveringtheinjuryaslongasthereisagoodreasonyoucouldn'thavediscoveredthereason
earlier
- Someonediscoverscancer10yrsaftersmokingcigarettesmustbringsuitwithin3yrsfrom
discoveringthecancer
Blanco
- ThePisallegingofRepetitivestressinjuryfromusingakeyboardwhichcausedcarpal
tunnel
- Defendantsaidfirstusedoctrineshouldbeusedwhenfirstusekeyboardandifthe
legislaturedoesn'tlikeitthentheycanchangeit
- Courtsays214cappliestotoxictortsandthereisnothingtoxicabtakeyboard
- RULE:accruesatlastuseofdeviceoronsetofsymptomswhicheverisfirstsotheyare
using214butnot214c
215.Actionstobecommencedwithinoneyear:againstsheriff,coronerorconstable;forescapeof
prisoner;forassault,battery,falseimprisonment,maliciousprosecution,libelorslander;for
violationofrightofprivacy;forpenaltygiventoinformer;onarbitrationaward
Whenisitvalidtochangestatuteoflimitationbycontract?
youcanagreetoshortenandnotextendtheSOLbycontract(aslongasitsreasonable)
onlyoncethecauseofactionaccruesucanextendthestatuteoflimitationthelimitationperiodthen
runsanewfromthetimeofthewritingcanonlyariseoutofcauseofactionfromacontract
202. Cause of action accruing without the state

CPLR 202 requires that when a nonresident sues on a cause of action accruing outside New
York, CPLR 202 requires the cause of action to be timely under the limitations periods of
both New York and the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued. This prevents
nonresidents from shopping in New York for a favorable Statute of Limitations. UNLESS the P
is a NY resident

Global

2 Delaware companies

P brings suit in NY saying that the actual injuries in NY

But court says it accrued in del. Even tho a few events happened in NY

Action accrues WHERE the breach/tort occurs

When an alleged injury is economic- usually where P lives and sustains the injury

203. Method of computing periods of limitation generally


CASEON203(f)Caffo
66misdiagnosed
6/67hedied

12/68Psuebcmisdiagnosed
9/72willisprobatedwhichisverylongtimeafterdeathnotnormal
1/73addwrongfuldeathsuittothemedmal
youcanaddwrongfuldeathaslongasits2yrswithinthedateofdeath
butherebcit'sthesameissuerelatedbackusuallywhenyouaddatheorytothesamesetof
factsitsrelatedbacktowhenthefirstcauseofactionwasbrought
thedissayingthattheissueisthathedidn'tdieatthetimeurrelatingitbackto
butthepolicyconcernsaredealtwithbcdoctorshouldhavenoticethathewassuedsoitisfair
torelateback

Duffy
-

firstsuit1979Psuedhospital
pdiesin1981
in1981hospitalwantstoaddthedoctorwhichmeansthatthemalpracticemusthave
occurrednoearlierthan12/78(within2.5yrsof1981)
Pwantstoamendcomplaintandhavethatrelatebacktotheoriginalsuit
hadtherebeenno3rdpartycomplaintthedoccouldnthavebeenbroughtin
butbcdocwasbroughtintolitigationbythehospitalthepolicyofthestatuteof
limitationswasfilledbchewasonnoticethathecouldbesuednowPcanamendthe
complainttohaveadirectclaimagainsthimwhichrelatesbacktothe3 rdpartycomplaint

205. Termination of action


Andreaneglecttoprosecute
205anewactioncanbebroughtwithin6monthsofaprioractionbeingdismissedaslongas
thefirstcasewastimelyexceptacertainlistofthingsoneofthesethingsisneglecttoprosecute
actionbroughtandthenpcouncilcontinuouslymisseddiscoverydeadlines
thisisfailuretoprosecute
208. Infancy, insanity

infancytollSOLuntilpersonturns18
formedmalthereisa10yrlimit
Thetollingdependsonwhoistheinterestintheaction

Henry
municipalityhasitsowndeadlinesbcit'sanegligencesuitagainstamunicipalityandthat
deadlineismissed
parentbroughtthesuitbutthendidn'tcommencetheactionwithintherightamountoftime
thecourtsaysthatjustbecauseaparentsbringsasuitdoesn'tchangethefactthatthe
statutetollstheSOLuntilinfantis18sothisisnttimebarred
youcantforfeitachildsrightsjustbcaparentmadeamistake
aslongasthebeneficiaryisgoingtobethechild
207TheAbsenceToll
Yarrusso
- TherewasanaccidentinNassauDwasaresidentofNY

ThenDmovedtoMiamiandwasthereformanyyrs
PtriedtosecurejurisdictionoverDforPersonalinjury(3yrsSOL)
UndertheVTL253and254hesentsummonsandcomplainttotheNYsecofstateand
mailedcopiesbyregisteredmailwreturnreceiptrequestedbutitwastothewrongplace
PmovedfordefaultjudgmentbcDneverrespondbutthiswasdismissedbcservicenever
completednotappealed
Whilethecrossmotionswerependingasummonsandcomplaintwerepersonallyservein
NYandDmovedforsummaryjudgmentsayingtimebarred
Under207theSOListolledwhentheDisabsentfromthestateUNLESS
JURISDICTIONOVERTHEDEFCANBEOBTAINEDWITHOUTPERSONAL
DELIVERYOFSUMMONTOHIMWIHTINTHESATE
HerebctheycouldhavegottenjurisdictionbysendingittoFLtheSOLwasnottolled

NOTE:todaythetollingisstoppedwhenhefilesandthenuhave120daystosendD

CLASSACTIONS:

901. Prerequisites to a class action


1)numerostiy
2)commonissuesoflaw/factifaclassiscertifieditsrarethatitwontsettle1/100gettried
thisisusuallybiggestkindofcases
3)ifyouwanttorepresentaclassuneedtobehurtinsamewayasclassrepresentativewillfairly
representtheclass
4)classactionneedstobebestwaytosettlethis
Smallv.lorriad
Psaidthattheywantedaconsumerfraudclassactionjustwantmonetaryrecoveryfor
allcigarettessince1980
Thewholereasontheybroughtthiskindofsuitwasbecausetheydon'twanttohaveto
proveeachindividualsdamagesintermsofhealthofindividualandwhetherthe
individualissueswilldominateoverclassissues
Thelowercourtcertifyclasswithoutevenmentioningaddiction
Thereisaquestionoffactthattheywouldneedtobifurcate(split)aftertheydecideon
thejointissuesandthendecideforeachplaintiffdidthypurchasebasedonrelianceof
thedeceptionmeaningdidtheyknowthatthecigaretteswereaddictive(orreasonably
shouldhaveknownbasedoninfointhemarket)
Alsoifuneverbecameaddictedthenuwerentrelyingonitsoweneedtoproveeach
individualwasactuallyaddicted
theotherissueisthatiftheytryandbringotherclaimsthenitwouldberesjudictaand
thereareotherclaimsthatothercigarettesmokerscouldbringthatmaybemore
lucrative.
Weinbergv.hertz
- hertzwassuedforunfairrentalfees

diffthentobaccocasebcit'sastandardpackageallhavecommonalitybutheretoidentify
classmemberswhichDsaywouldcostafortune
courtsaysthisisactuallyperfectcaseforclassactionbcifwedidn'taggregatenoonecould
bringthesuitbcrecoverytoosmallandtheydidn'tbelieveherzthatitwouldbetoo
expensivetoidentifyclassmembers

902. Order allowing class action


within60daysthedhastoanswerpshouldmovetocertifytheclass
902(5)ifitstoobigitmaynotbemanageablebyonecourt
pplcanoptoutofclassactionWHENAPPROPIATE[infederallawthatisabsoluterightwhen
theclaimisformonetarydamages]
courtcanuncertifyiffactschangeduringthecase
904. Notice of class action
904forinjunctive/declaratoryrelief(akanodamages)noticeisnotrequiredunless
necessaryforfairrepresentationoftheclassbutotherwiseitisnecessary
Boulevard- no notice is necessary for declaratory relief class action
R 908. Dismissal, discontinuance or compromise

908ifsomeonewantstodismissaclassactiononceitstarteditneedscourtapproval
forsettlementmostoftenthecourtgivesnoticeandhashearingabtwhethersettlementshouldbe
grantedandanyclassmembercancomeandobjectitusuallycourtsthegrantsthesettlement
Woodrow
- oneoutofstatePwhowasn'tfromNYwantedtooptoutbutwhenclassactiondemands
equitablethenthereisnooptout[thiswouldbediffifitwerefordamages]bcitnecessarily
benefitsallclassmemberakaNOoptoutoptionifonlyforinjunctiverelief
- howeveritwasultimatelyimpropertoapprovethesettlementwhichpreventedthemfrom
brininganyothersuitsfordamamgesbcthisessentiallyamountedtomonetarydamages(bc
nowtheycantsueformonetarydamages)andthenitbecomeunfairnottoallowthemtoopt
outbcnowitsreallynotlettingthemoptoutformonetarydamagesclassaction
1401. Claim for contribution
so long as a tortfeasor would be liable to the plaintiff had he/she been named in the
action, that tortfeasor is subject to contribution.
JOINTANDSEVERALLIABILITY
Tenantsuearchitect(A)andlandord(L)andtheycanhavecrossclaims
ifthetenantonlysueonethenthatonecouldhaveathirdpartyclaimagainsttheother
FirstjuryaskedifAandLarebothatfault
thenifbothtowhichextentiseachresponsible
thenjuryisaskedtoestdamages
ifjuryfindsbothliableandA70%andLfor30%
thejuryfinds$100,000onlyforeconomicloss
bctheyarejointtortfeasorsthePcancollecttheentire$100,000foreitherone

iftheyarebothsolventthenifPgoestoAtheycangettheentire$100,000andthenAcangotoLand
get$30,000.
LetsassumeAwasinsolvent
PgoestoLandgetsthe$100,000andnowLcantrecoupthe$70,000
LetssayAandLarguethetenant(T)wasnegligent
Section141comparativenegligencewasaddedtocontributorynegligent
SothejurywouldbeaskedtodivideresponsibilitybetweenALandT
JurysaysA70%,T10%andL20%
NowPisonlyabletocollect$90,000
HYPO ABT INDEMNIFICATION
Psuescabcompany(C)
CsuesDthirdpartycomplaintagainstdriverforindemnification
indemnificationisokherebcisacaseofvicariousliabilityrespondentsuperior
vicariousliabilitymasterservantrelationshipwheretheemployerisonlyliablebcoftherelationship
withtheemployee=indemnificationisallowed
Dolev.dowchemicals

H died after being exposed to poison. W said there wasnt proper warning. D makes 3rd
party complaint against. Court uses relative culpability, that the jury should decide what
percentage of culpability for each D instead of all or nothing.

1601. Limited liability of persons jointly liable


Letsassume$100,000wasfornoneconomicloss
Article1601noneconomiclossesprotectionifunder50%
Juryfindsliability:T10%,A70%,L20%
IfAisinsolventthenLcanonlybeforcedtogive$20,000
unlessAorLdefraudedtheT
FromAyoucouldgettheentire90,000andthentheAcouldseektheadditional20,000fromL

Hypo:
Betty P, falls in laundry room in building. Sues architect (A) and Owner
(O). The two Ds make cross claims against each other. Jury concludes
that the fault is split as follows:
o
B - 10%
o
A - 70%
o
O - 20%
Jury says $6000 economic damages, and $4000 non-economic damages.
For the economic damage, we remove B's share, so $6000-600=$5400.
The two Ds are each liable for the full amount and joint tortfeasors. If B
goes to A and asks for $5400, A can sue O for 20% of total, $1200. Same
if B goes to O for all $5400, O can cross claim for contribution for $4200.
If someone is insolvent - if O is broke and B collects $5400 from A, A is
stuck with that full amount. Same if A is insolvent.

For non-economic damage, we remove B's share, so $4000400=$3600. Since A's culpability is above 50%, no protection from
Article 16, O does get protection. So if A becomes insolvent, B can only
get $800 from O.
It seems like 50% is among defendants, so in this case if 50% is
allotted to A, it is 50/90th and therefore not protected.
Exception: negligence, can be liable for non-economic even if liable for
less than 50%.
Robinsonv.JunethecourthadaweirdwayofdealingwiththistheysaidAwas50%liable,Lwas
40%andTwas10%saidAwas50/90andthatismorethan50%liablesocouldgettheentireamount
fromA
Ravov.Rogatnick(article16wasnotenactedsoeconomicandnoneconomicdamageswere
consideredinthesameway)
babyhadbraindamage
2doctorsmessedup,juryfoundbothdoctorsliable
R80%liableandH20%liable
usuallywjointandseveralliabilitythereisoneincidentbutheretherewere2diffactorsatdifftimes
herethejurycouldntsaywhichwasresponsibleforthedamagethatwasdone
amountowed2,250,000
Rcantpayhis80%
soisHnowresponsiblefortherestoftheamountRcantpay?
Hsaidthisisntjointandseveralthisissuccessiveliability(whichwouldmeaneachisliablefortheir
ownact)
thecourtsaysthereisonesingleindivisibleinjurysowewillapplyjointandseveralliabilityeven
thoughtheactsweresuccessive
Effectofsettlements
realeaseinsettlementagainstmorethanoneperson
whathappensifoneoftheDssettleandtheotherdoesnt
thejurywillbestilldeterminerelativeculpability
takehigherofrelativecapabilityordamages
ajointtortfeasorcannolongermaintainaclaimforcontributionfromothersandotherscantcollect
againsthim
IfTsuesAandL
AandLbothowe50%
culpabilityis$100,000
LsettleswithTfor$25,000
wereducejudgmentby50%so50%owed
- butifitwere$75,000settlementthenwouldAonlyowe$25,000
InthematterofNYasbestos:
Ajurycomesbackwith4mil.
K15%
M60%
o25%

msettlesfor$800,000
osettlesfor2.5mil.
thenlawyerforksaysheowesnothingweapplyineachcasethehigherofculpabilityor
amountofsettlement
forM60%wereduce60%whichis2.4leaving1.6
thenforOwetakehigherof25%or2.5mil.whichis2.5mil
andthenwesee1.6miland2.5mil.>Oowesnothingthisdoesntmakesense
soweaddtogetherMandOtogetherowe85%whichis3.4buttheypaid3.3
sothehigheristhe85%andthenKowes$600,000
YOUAGGREGATEsettlementandthendecidehowmuchisowed
MOTION ACTION:
Motion
yousubmitthatuwanttomakemotioncourtgivesudate
thenyougivetheotherpartynoticeofmotion
youcanappealamotioninnyimmediatelybutnotinfedcases
wouldneedtobecertifiedtogettothecourtofappeals
CPLR 5701 (a)(2), an appeal to the appellate division may be taken as a matter
of right on certain orders, including interlocutory orders, where the motion resulting
in the order was made on notice. (Appeals stemming from ex parte orders are
governed by CPLR 5701 (a) 3.) Among the categories of orders which may be
appealed as of right are those that "involve[] some part of the merits" of the action
and orders that "affect[] a substantial right." CPLR 5701 (a) 2
An alternative to initiating a motion by notice is an order to show causeOne motions for an order to show cause with an affidavit explaining why they would
be unduly prejudiced if it wasn't granted- this motion can be ex parte because it is
immediate relief
- the merits arent reached in granting or denying the order- it just says that
the other party must stop the activity they are doing until the motion is
reached on its merits
- Thenyoutelltheotherpartythatyourordertoshowcausewasgrantedandyouaregivena
courtdatewhenyoubothcomeinandthejudgedirectsDtoshowwhytheyshouldn't
grant/denythemotion
- Theotherpartycanalsosubmitanaffidavitofwhytheordertoshowcauseshouldnotbe
grantedbuttheywouldneedtoknowthisishappening
- Manylawyersincorrectlyusethisformotionsbutitsrlysupposetoonlybeforsomething
thatneedstohappenimmediately
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES- bc its not the ultimate remedy of the case this is
before the final order has been decided
REPLEVIN- seizure of chattel on behalf of P- before suit1) security measures- u can seize something before litigation- so that if
you get a judgment you know there will be the money to back it up ; or
2) you want to preserve the status quo
Hypo: assume u are the owner of a painting that u put in ur apt in ny- it's a shegal
and ur abt to go away and ur concerned w safety of the paining- u have neighbor u

are frndly w- and you tell them ur on vacation and u give it to the neighbor to hold
on to she says sure-and then you come back and the frnd wont give back and
says- you said it was gift and youll never see it again
- you go to court right away to get a provisional remedy of seizure of a
chatell ex parte- article 7102(c)- u must submit an affidavit with details of the
chattel and tell the story
- you can seek this without starting the action but the complaint and
affidavit will be basically the same anyway
- you must not know any defense that the D has
- 7102(c)(7) if u submit exparte- then you must show that the def is
going to walk off w it- that's why u need this- (e) undertaking-the P must have a bond in case they were wrong in
seizing the chattel this must be sufficient surety- which not less then
twice the amount of the thing u will take
- the chattel must be seized by the sheriff- you cant seize it yourself
- d(4)An order of seizure granted without notice shall provide that the plaintiff shall move for
an order confirming the order of seizure on such notice to the defendant and sheriff and
within such period, not to exceed five days after seizure, as the court shall direct. Unless the
motion is made within such period, the order of seizure shall have no further effect and shall
be vacated on motion and any chattel seized thereunder shall be returned forthwith to the
defendant. Upon the motion to confirm, the plaintiff shall have the burden of establishing the
grounds for confirmation.
- sheriff must retain the chattel for 10 days
morning glory- p is a corp
- d were 2 directors of the corp
- the d helped p buy the machine
- the d had it in their possession and p got it ex parte through 7102- this is
when they have the order to confirm
- the p said they would transfer title if the d wins
- the court decided to put it back with the d but ordered that the d could not
move it until the litigation is over- TRO against moving it until lit is over
- the p didn't show cause to seize it there is no reason to think
that the d would get rid of or move this chattel
Christies inc- 7109- provides for extraordinary orders of seizure if
the item unique
- here the d had lots of decorative art and furniture which secured the loan
- the d default on loan
- they want the items where the chattel in unique- D is ordered to give
property to P even without a sheriff
- here art was work twice amount of the debt- so a windfall for P
6201- Attachment
hypo:
-

there is an accident in NJ and there is no long arm statute that would work
p wants jurisdiction in ny

d has lots of money in bank in ny


pre 1977 there was no q that the p could obtain quasi in rem jurisdiction
even tho the property has nothing to do w the suit
then post 1977- heitner- also need minimum contacts bc money had
NOTHING to do with the case
what if we have in personam jurisdiction bc person comes to visit- can d
attach the money in the bank pending the outcome of the case
he is entitled to attachment not to establish jurisdiction but for
security bc the d isnt from this jurisction
6201 the debt follows the debtor- so harris v balk survives in terms
of security but not jurisdiction
you can also have this if you think that the d will hide the money from
creditor

Society general
- Zurich owes bank 350,000- bank cant get money
- the guy also has a ny acct.- and the whole point of this suit is that they
think that D is hiding money
o So the bank relies on the fraud provision 6201(3) which says that the
defendant, with intent to defraud his creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a judgment
that might be rendered in plaintiff's favor, has assigned, disposed of, encumbered or
secreted property, or removed it from the state or is about to do any of these acts
6211. Order of attachment without notice

6202. Debt or property subject to attachment; proper garnishee


Abko

- pre shafer -pre 1977- so we are talking abt qausi in rem attachment
- abko is in ny have loan agreement
- if the movie does well then inc will owe ltd proceeds from movie
- the court says that the rights of the licensing agreement is a property
interest so it falls within 6202- bc its assignable

WRONGFUL ATTACHEMENT- you can seek damages


Injunction- CPLR 63- most common type of relief
- Suit for injunction- often want move for order to show cause for
preliminary injunction and you get a TRO in the meantime and then if
the suit is for an injunction you are asking for a preliminary injunction
subject to a final injunction

6301. Grounds for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order

Credit Agricole- 3 banks Suing a Russian BANK- suing for 30 million


- they want a TRO bc the Russians were making themselves judgment proof
by moving the money
- the court denies bc P were seeking a money judgment and
preliminary injunctions are only available for injunctive relief
- the court says that theoretically for a money judgment what you would
ask for is an attachment but here the property is in Russia to attachment
also isnt available
CPLR- 65- Notice of pendency- you file this with the court to tell the world that
you have a claim to the property so that no one else can then claim that they didn't
know
Then you need to serve the summons within 30 days
Parr meadow racing- if you file a notice of pendency (or any other provisional
remedy) improperly you can be liable for abuse of process.
PLEADINGS
In ny (unlike fed) you can file the summons 120 days before the complaint
3106- pleadings
When the basis is fraud- you need to state basis in particular
3044- ONLY IN NY- If a complaint is verified (aka it has a sworn affidavit by client
which states the client read the pleading and is saying its right) the answer then
also must verified
- you should always verify complaint and for corp. this is done by director/officer
BILL OF PARTICULARS:
- used primarily in neg- where they must specify the acts and/or omission
constituting the negligence
- the theory of a bill of particulars is to put more meat on bones in terms of
disclosure of what is being complained of in a detailed manner- used by d
against p (hybrid between a pleading and discovery)
- usually served w the answer
- the P doesn't need to give evidence in the bill of particulars, just state
more facts as to what they think the evidence will be/is and why they
think they have a valid claim
Ferlock v. Albany- in malpractice there is a 10yr limit to tolling- even if child is not yet of age
- the Ps family were seeking special damages etc- the D asks for a bill of particulars
- the D says the bill of particulars wasn't particular enough
- the P serve notice to admit that the nurses notes were missing
- the court says that bc the nurses notes were missing and it was the Ds
job to retain them, it is not the Ps fault that they cant state with
more particularity, and therefore the P has been as particular are
they could be
DICLOSURE= DISCOVERY-3101- crucial bc most cases settle before trial so this is
the main tool in getting ppl to settle

Andon v. 302-304
- trying to say baby was hurt by lead based test- lowered iq
- want to get mom to take iq test- to see if the issue was genetics
- you need to show that there is strong medical reason to require the IQ test
- weigh the relevance vs burden
3102(c) - pre-action discovery
Holzman- the p was claiming negligence w a bus and p wants to inspect the bus
- pre action discovery should only be granted when the petitioner
demonstrates that he has a meritorious cause of case and the
information sought is material and necessary to the actionable
wrong- Cant use discovery to ascertain whether there is a cause of
action
- here he doesn't have enough facts to plead a meritorious claim
- you cant use this when you have legit claim and the pre-discovery would
just give you more info to allege additional theories
with negligence- broad complaint then in the answer they can ask for a
detailed bill of particulars
Electronic discovery- v important in a complex lit.
- ESI- electronically stored info
US bank v. greenpoint- issue- who pays for the discovery?
- Expense- how readily retrievable- email on ur comp is readily retrievablebut deleted emails that need to be retrieved is much harder
- Who pays- b4 ESI it was the producing parties responsibility
- follows the fed. Interpretation of Zubulake- cost of discovery is on
producing party but can be shifted
- basically looking at who has the money to pay
- Zubulake factors:
o the extents to which the request is specifically tailored to discover
relevant info
o the availability of such info from other sources
o the total cost of production compared to the amount in controversy
o the total cost of production compared to the resources of each
party
o the relative ability of each party to control the costs and incentive
to do so
o the importance of the issue at stake in the litigation
o the relative benefit to the parties of obtaining the information
Voom- when do u need to preserve documents
- arises way b4 a suit is brought
- its when litigation should have been reasonably anticipated
Privilege

2absoluteprivileges3101(b)and(c)
(b)Privilegedmatter.
(c)Attorney'sworkproduct.
3101(d)(2)qualifiedprivilege
weinerthinkstheabsoluteprivilegeofmentalimpressionsetc.aboutwhatotherprofessionalsdo
thequalifiedprivilegeisalsoforthingsppldoinpreparationfortrial
foragentsoftheattorneythestandardisunduehardship
SpectrumcaseNYcourtofappealsbroadviewofmaterialsprotectedbyattorneyclientprivilege
- chemicalbankaskedlawfirmtoinvestigatewhatwasgoingonthespectrum
- ifthishadjustbeentogivethembusinessadviceitwouldn'tbeprivilegebutbcitisof
legalcharacterandambitoflegalworkitisprivileged
- thecommunicationbetweenclientandattorneyneedstobeaboutlegalrelationshipis
privileged(eitherfromclienttoattorneyorattorneytoclient)akarenderinglegalservices
- forlegalreasonstheyaskedthelawfirmtoinvestigatetodealwiththelegalconsequencesof
fraud/corruptionandjustbcthememoendswithnotesaboutwhatthecompanyshoulddoin
thefuturedoesn'tputthisinvestigationintotherealmofbusinessdecisions(manylegal
investigationswillincludenotesonhowtoavoidfutureproblems)
- theydon'tneedtoreachwhetherthiswasinanticipationoflitigationtofindifitsattorney
workproductherebcitwasacommunication
Hoffmanifsomeonediscoverednameandaddressofpotentialwitnessyouneedtogivethatinfo(not
privileged)
Mirandashreddingmachineaccidentifaccidentreportiswithinnormalcourseofbusinessthenitsnot
privileged3101(g)
- burdenthatitsnotinnormalcourseofbusinessisonthepartyseekingdisclosure
DISCOVERYOFEXPERTS
EXPERTS- someone with specialized knowledge useful to a case
- most importantly docs
- engineer
- accountants
3101(d)(1)- upon request the other side can ask which experts you will call and ask
abt them and abt what they intend to testify w reasonable detail- and on what basis
they are testifying but unless u can show special circumstance u cant depose them
- however for med mal- they can omit the name of the medical expert but still
need reasonable detail about the credentials and what they will testify
Saar v. Brown
-

classicmedmalsuesthehospitalanddoc
thedocdidn'tnameaexpertandthehospitaltoldalittleabouttheexpertbutdidn'tgive
enoughdetail

thePaskedtoprecludebothoftheirwitnesses
herethehospitaldidn'tgiveenoughdetailabouttheunderlyingreasonstohisconclusionsso
thecourtjustsaidthatwithin30daystheyneededtoadddetailsortheexpertwouldbe
precludedfromtestifying
thecourtalsotoldthedoctogetanexpertthengivereasonabledetailbutwilltellthemto
giveenoughdetailsothatthePcanrebutandmustgivesomeactualdetails
courtsarelenientwhenitcomestodoctorstestifyingtheyhaveastronglobby

Devicesusedindisclosure
31063117Deposition
Devices used in disclosure:
depositions- testimony is given under oath- not given before a judge or court room prob in office
if use depo before jury can show jury
at depo u rep client
only time can say not to answer for ex if would violate privilege or confidentiality
can take depo of witnesses
have to give notice to other side so dont take depo ex parte
for a non-party the sole methods of discovery are documents and depo
section 3106a- normally D has priority in taking depo so can take depo of D before P which means when u serve answer serve notice to take depo of P
notice to take depo- see form 622
Gobermantherewere3questionsaskedbyDsattorneyatPdepositiontakingabouthischaracterand
Pslawyerdoesn'twanthimtoanswerbutthecourtsaysthatwewillassumethatthatthiswillonlybe
usedattrialforimpeachmentpurposes
- exceptforobjectionsofformwhicharedealtwithduringthedepoORifansweringtheq
wouldviolatethewitnessesconstitutionalrightsALLotherobjectsarepreservedfortrial
- thismeansthatallquestions(unlesstheyviolateyourcon.rights)mustbeansweredbutthey
wontnecessarilybeabletoadmititattrial
DepositionattrialWojtas
- you can always use the deposition of an adverse party - this means that
you don't need to call an adverse party to the stand and you can just
admit their depo
- but you can only use your own partys deposition if they are
unavailable this means if you have deposed your witness unless they
are unavailable you MUST call them to the stand
- usually a P/D can never use their own depo at trial bc they are the parties
- they are available
- but in this case the D was v sick so they were considered unavailable and
their deposition was admitted
Interrogatories- when in a depo they would need time to review the material- so
usually you ask for these before a deposition so you know what to ask about. These
are also used after a deposition when you now know what to ask for specifically

Mackinson- 3120- a means of obtaining docs from a party or if you want from 3 rd party
you must get a court order
- a wife wants the documents of 10 yrs of financials
- the court says before u make demand for discovery of docs you first
depose the witness so you know what you are asking for and also says
you get 5 yrs
- also court has the ability to limit disclosure if embarrassing or
burdensome
---in reality this makes no sense because you want the docs before
deposition
Notice to admitting- before trial you can ask the other side to admit to certain
facts
- they can be penalized for not admitting things that are obviously true- so
you shouldn't deny everything bc that is bad faith
- You cannot ask to admit a legal determination- you can only ask to admit
FACTS
- if you fail to answer a request to admit- considered like u admit- so either
object or deny
3213- summary judgment in lieu of a complaint- just start with summary
judgment for an action based on an instrument for the payment of money
Section 3214(b)- Stay of disclosure- if anyone seeks to take advantage of
motion to dismiss, summary judgment, or summary judgment in lieu of complaintdisclosure is stayed until the motion is determined - unless court determines
otherwise
This can be a big advantage for D
3211- motion to dismiss
3211(a)(7)- failure to state a claim
Rovello
- Wife made contract w D to sell dead husbands property
- The D moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim bc P didn't pay the
amount she was supposed to and this was just based on an affidavit that
said a down payment was due
- None of the affidavits P bring really deal with why she didn't pay
- Anytime something is brought under (a) or (b) and there is a question of
fact that needs to be decided it can be converted to summary judgment
- Whether or not the D has answered- the court after adequate notice
to the party the court can treat the motion to dismiss as motion
for summary judgment (this is diff then what usually happens which is
that d would need to answer and motion for summary judgment)
- However in this case the court didn't tell the parties that they would treat
this as summary judgment and cant dismiss for failure to state a claim
unless it actually doesn't state any claim

If complaint states a cause of action then cant dismiss on 3211(a)


(7) had they just given notice probably wouldve been dismissed under
summary judgment

3212- motion for summary judgment


Downside is youre giving away your strategy for trial if the motion is denied.
Ramos- P was working and a transformer blows up and he sues the manufacturer
for product liability but by the time he does that the transformer was gone
bc this suit was brought 2 yrs later and at first he hadnt brought this
claims against the manufacturer
- The issue is that there is no transformer and its 2yrs later so how can he
sue?
- The D moves for summary judgment saying they werent at fault, and had
expert that says that the transformers were all checked for safety and
there was never this issue
- Gave summary judgment bc ps affidavit didn't give any other fact to rule
out any other possibilities
---This may be a bad result bc maybe the jury should have been able to decide if
they trust the P or the expert
Ugarriza
- facts are undisputed: D at 4am turned into shopping center then made a
turn into dark street and hit a divider and P got hurt and sued
we don't need a jury to decide what happened but we need a jury to
apply the standard of negligence to decide whether P was negligent
Goncalves- a jury should decide what is reasonably considered a safe in a hotel
Weissman- there were 6 ppl who wanted to buy delicatessen and that the corp
would make a payment and the P is saying this means there was an indemnification
clause
- the P says this equivalent to a personal guarantee and this should be
considered an instrument for the payment of money under 3213
- the court says that's crazy- 3213 is only for a clear promissory note
or something else certain
- the court then granted summary judgment against the P bc they say there
is no way to construe this document as a promise to pay- there is no right
to sue for non payment in this case
- here there was cross summary judgment
motion for summary judgment allows the court to grant to other side even if they
don't cross-move
3215(a)- judgment by default
- amount can be entered by a clerk if there is a sum certain but if its not certain a
judge needs to decide how much you should get

- Gleich- here the lawyers sue for their unpaid fee but there wasn't enough to say
that was a certain sum so even though the D defaulted, the D can still come and
contest the amount due when the judge is deciding
3218- confession of judgment- useful if you are negotiating a settlement- no
litigation- the other side says they will pay in installments for the next few months
- if a payment isnt made u can sue on agreement but you don't wanna get
involved in a full scale litigation
- so if you have enough leverage u will negotiate a 3218- in which the
potential D says that they confess to judgment of a certain amount- and
then you agree to hold that in escrow and not use it unless they default
- if there is a default u are seeking a judgment on the basis of this proof and
then its automatic
Res judicata and Collateral estoppel/ issue and claim preclusion
2 cases and something was decided in the first case preclude a second case
A sues b in auto accident and b wins- no negligence. Then a new witness appears
which couldn't be found before
- he cant sue again- that is res judicata
- under 505(a)(1)(2)- open up judgment on new info- get it vacated
Ex: u sue in tort and 3 yrs statute of limitation- d seeks to dismiss on basis that it
wasn't a proper tort claim- cant leave to amend
- then you sue on breach of contract- the matter has already been
determined even though you have a new theory so its res judicata
- but you could appeal that judge abused discretion by not letting u amend
to add a contract claim
Gowan v. Tully
- 1st case was a class action it lost
o They didnt opt out. If they did it wouldnt be precluded.
- 2nd case was a private action
- but here they say the law changed.so big change of circumstances
- the court says that new supreme court law doesn't change anything
to make it not res judicata.
o This sounds ridiculous! If the law changes, your rights can be
changed!
Hodes
-

hodes and herman convicted of medicare fraud


their nursing home operating certificate was revoked
that gets reversed bc there was a provision that says that you cant
automatically revoke the certificate
then the rule changes to take away their license- change is statute
the court talk a lot abt policy and how we don't want these ppl to have
their license so come up w reasons res judicata doesn't apply
change in the law was deemed to permit a second suit in rare
cases- for example FOIL case where they were turned down law amended
and now can ask again

pertinity proceeding then statute of limitation amended and now can bring
suit
so when statutory right is altered can bring second suit
[this doesn't really make sense]

ResjudicataDismissalonthemerits:
o Didntstateaclaim
o Grantofsummaryjudgmentonmerits
Ifjustforproceduralproblem,mostlikelynotconsideredonthemerits
IfforSOL________
Issuepreclusion2ndclaimisdifferentthanthefirst,butstillcan'tlitigateitin2 nd.Theoryisyou
alreadyhadyourdayincourtsowon'tgiveyouasecondshot.
o Canbeuseddefensivelyoroffensively(byP,toestablishliabilityofD)
o BlonderAsuesBbecauseBinfringedAspatent.CourtsaysAspatentisinvalid.A
thensuesConsamepatent.CsaysAspatentwasalreadydeemedinvalid.SCOTUSsaid
itsinvalidaltsnonmutual____collateralestoppel.
Thisisanexampleofdefensivecollateralestoppel.
o KaufmanAfterPwasvictorious,otherPstriedusingcollateralestoppelagainstEly
Lillytosayyoualreadylostonsameissues,weautomaticallywin.Pswon
Thisisoffensivecollateralestoppel
o CASEPoffensivelyusingcollateralestoppel.Darguesinthefirstcaseitwasajudge
thatdecidedit,wewantjuryinthiscase,anddenies7thAbynotgivingustrialbyjury.
Courtdoesntbuyit,saysitsstillcollateralestoppel
o Courtnotesoffensiveusecanbeabused,soshouldntbeavailabletoaPthateasily
couldvejoinedthefirstlitigation,orincircumstancesitotherwisewouldvebeen
unfair.
Ex:2identicallysituatedPswithclaimsagainstD.Theycouldjoin,butonesays
letswaitandseehowtheotherPdoesthatwaywethenhaveaneasycase,orif
theylosewelllearnfromtheirmistakeandbringourowncase.Courtsays
yourenotallowedtodothis.
Note:AwaitandseePlosestherighttocollateralestoppel,NOTtherighttosue
o Chanv.BishopDivorcelitigation.Pedshewasentitledtodivorcebecause
husbandwasphysicallyabusive.Didntseekdamagesforinjuries.Divorceactiongot
resolved.Latershesuedfordamagesforassault.Hesaidclaimpreclusion.Courtsaida
divorcetrialisverydifferent,sotherewon'tbetortpreclusionfromadivorcetrial.
o DESLitigationYouonlyhavecollateralestoppelifexactsameQ,sojudgewantedto
makesureitwasclearwhattheQsweresohasjurydecideonindividualQsandnotjust
liability/damages.
o Note:Havingthesamelawyerdoesntmakeadifference.
o Cotter(?)Pedestriankilled.2suits:1bydecedentagainstorganizersofbiketrial,other
againststate.Claimagainststatewassettledincourtofclaimsthatcomparative
negligencewas50%.Inothercase,thejurysaiddecedentwas60%negligent,soit
shouldntberelitigated.Courtsays",becausethey'recomparingPtotwodifferent
Ds,itsnotthesameissue.
o TidingsPersonwaiteduntil6yrsaftertrusteeresignedtoaskforaccounting.SOL
shouldvebeenraisedbutlawyerdidntdoit.Suesformalpractice.CourtsaidPdidnt
showitexpired,andalsothatitwaswaived.Appellatedivisiononlyuphelditwas

waived,didntdecideonSOLissues.Firmsaysevenifwescrewedup,itwasntdeemed
theSOLwasanissuesoofcoursewasntraisedandwereScottfree!CourtofAppeals
saysjustbecauseitwasntdecidedondoesntmeanitwascollaterallyestopped.
o Gilbert2cases:1.Dsdeposition,didntwanttoAwithoutlawyerthere,fightensues.
LawyerchargesDwithharassment,apettyoffense,incitycourt.There'satrial,with
witnesses,Dfoundguiltyofharassment.2.Nextday,Pfilescomplaintofassaultagainst
Dandsayscollateralestoppel.Courtsaysestoppelisn't herebecausethefirst
courtwasntfancyenoughtoapplycollateralestoppelbecausetherewasnojury,
andalsobecausehecouldntbeexpectedtodefendwiththesamevigor(Prof:This
doesntmakesense)
Decisioninsmallclaimscourtisn'tenoughtoapplycollateralestoppel.
Incriminalcase,ifthere'saconviction,thatcanestablishelementsof
liabilityaltscollateralestoppelinsubsequentcivilcase.Butifthere'san
acquittal,thatwon'tstopfromacivilcase.
o ConEdMajorblackout,accusedofnegligence,lossofearningsCasebroughtby14
corporations.CourtsaiditwasalreadylitigatedandConEdwasheldnegligent.They
applycollateralestoppel.
Nonpartyboundbypriorcase:
o Hypo:Classaction,classloses.Inthiscaseanonpartywillbeboundbyoutcomeof
priorcase.
o Bugle(?)3lawyerpartners,enterquestionablefeeagreement.Qoflegalityoffee
agreementwasraisedagainstonebutnotall3partners.Feeagreementfoundtobeillegal
andnotenforceableforthatone.Canother2partnersrelitigatethisissue?Courtsaid
becausethey'reinprivitywithotherpartner,there'scollateralestoppel.
o BigCaveat:InTaylor,