New York Civil Law

New York's Greatest Legal Minds All in One Room

I had the privilege today of attending the Court of Appeals' "Restoration and Renovation" Homecoming for former employees of the Court (including past Judges, Clerks, and other employees). For New York lawyers, this was like being backstage at a Beatles or Rolling Stones concert. Chief Judge Kaye hosted the ceremonies at which the likes of David Siegel, Judge Howard Levine, Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, Judge Bellacosa, Judge Ciparick, Judge G. Smith, and appellate lawyer guru Thomas Newmann attended. It was great to see old friends and meet others who had worked at the Court.

If you live in Albany or come here for a visit, the Courthouse is worth seeing. The Courtroom alone makes you proud to be a New Yorker.

Deciphering an Enigma - New York No-Fault Law Rates

I found some useful information with repect to New York No-Fault Law rates while I was deciphering a pretty bad record in preparation for an arbitration. The medical codes for the No-Fault rates can be found in Appendix 17-A and Appendix 17-C of the New York Codes Rules and Regulations. I could find neither appendix online. For Current Procedure Transcript codes that are not in either of those sources, you need to find a copy of the Official New York Workers' Compensation Medical Fee Schedule. You can buy the schedule from Medicode Publications - (1-800-765-6023).

If you just want to know what the CPT codes mean, you can go to this helpful site.

New York Attorneys' Fees Decision Is An Appeal of Right to Court of Appeals

The defendants in the extremely interesting First Department case Levenson v. Lippmann have appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals. A short article in New York Lawyer addresses the appeal of right. Once I read the opinion a couple of times, I will post my prediction whether the Court will dismiss or retain the appeal.

Another New York Law Blawg

I discovered a new New York Law blawg in the middle of one crazy day of litigation and appellate work. I just found "Law, Culture, and Current Events" today. New York City attorney Frederic Abramson provides interesting and helpful posts on a regular basis. The entries are sometimes NYC focused, but Mr. Abramson often posts information that are extremely helpful to lawyers throughout the state.

What Were Governor Pataki and State Senator Bruno Thinking?

I can't quite explain the banter between Governor Pataki and State Senator Joe Bruno, but I guess I'm not alone in thinking they acted in an inappropriate fashion during some public comments at Hudson Valley Community College (see this article in Newsday). The ACLU had this to say about the duo's wordplay.

In Case You Haven't Heard, "How Appealing" has a New Home

With his following, I doubt I have to tell you that the iconic blawg "How Appealing" has a new home at Legal Affairs Magazine.

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer Nipping At Insurers' Heels

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has announced his office's investigation of the practice of compensating insurance brokers by insurance companies. The AG's office is currently investigating three of this county's largest insurance companies. Here are several articles explaining the investigation: this article in the New York Times; this one at Reuters; this article in the New York Daily News; and this one in The Insurance Journal.

The Second Department Case Law Supports Disclaimers Past 30 Days

The Appellate Division, Second Department has recently allowed insurers to disclaim coverage past 30 days after the insurers first learn of grounds for disclaimer or liability or denial of coverage. In New York Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Majid, the Court allowed a 31-day delay in disclaiming coverage under an insurance policy exclusion based on the insurer's investigation of the facts. Similarly, the Court allowed a 49-day delay in disclaiming coverage in New York State Ins. Fund v. Merchants Ins. Co. of N.H., Inc. The lesson to be learned for insureds and insurers is to determine whether the claims adjuster documented the investigation to justify the delay. If so, the Second Department appears to excuse the delay past the 30-day time limiation.

Was it Open and Obvious to the Court of Appeals that They Would Change Tort Law in This Way?

The Appellate Division, First Department in this recent decision has recently joined the Second and Third Departments in their two-pronged analysis of open and obvious dangers. The first prong is whether there is a duty to warn of the defect and the second is whether, even if no duty to warn exists, the landowner kept its premises in a reasonably safe condition in light of the open and obvious defect. This two-pronged analysis emanates from the Court of Appeals' 2001 decision, Tagle v. Jakob. Although the Court in Tagle does not explicitly set forth the two-pronged analysis, the Third Department in MacDonald v. City of Schenectady seemed to start this analysis. Since MacDonald, most every open and obvious case has followed the two-pronged approach, including the Second Department in Cupo v. Karfunkel.

I am not quite sure if the Court of Appeals' holding in Tagle supports such interpretation, and since the Appellate Division Departments seem to line up all on the same side of the issue, the Court will likely not address the issue for awhile. However, the Court might want to put its imprimatur on the two-pronged approach at some point in the near future.

New York Civil Law Mentioned on NY Bar Association Website

Check at number 4 of "wEbrief!" on the General Practice Section of the New York Bar Association website: here. I did not realize that my posts were slanted toward defense attorneys; hopefully I don't come through too one-sided. In any event, the summary was extremely flattering.