Cites Hamer v. . Sidway — Mallory v. Qilletl (31 FT. Y. 413); Belknap v. Bender (75 id. 446); Berry v. Brown (107 id. 659); Beaumont v. Beene (Shirley’s L. C. 6); Porterfield, v. Butler (47 Miss. 165); Hunoll v. Wilson (9 Barb
In this bankruptcy case, Dunkin' Brands (as franchisors and landlords) sought to appeal a bankruptcy court order holding that the 210-day time limit under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4) for assuming or rejecting nonresidential real property leases did not apply to leases integrated with franchise agreements, allowing the debtor-franchisees more time to decide on assumption or rejection. The district court first determined that the bankruptcy order was not final and thus not appealable as of right. It then denied leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal, finding that the order did not present a controlling question of law with substantial grounds for difference of opinion, would not materially advance the litigation's termination, and would not cause irretrievable loss of rights if reviewed only after final judgment. The core reasoning emphasized the strong policy against piecemeal appeals in bankruptcy proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute arising from a 2008 construction site accident in which worker Gilberto Diaz was allegedly injured while employed by a subcontractor on a project where Abraham Little Neck was the general contractor. Mt. Hawley Insurance, which had issued a commercial general liability policy to Abraham Little Neck, moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend, indemnify, or cover any party in the underlying state-court personal injury action due to the insured's failure to provide timely notice of the occurrence as required by the policy. The court granted summary judgment against Abraham Little Neck, holding that its delay in notifying the insurer until months after learning of the claim and lawsuit breached the policy's notice provision and barred coverage. However, the court denied the motion without prejudice as to Diaz, noting that New York Insurance Law allows an injured party to provide independent notice and that the record did not establish whether Diaz had done so or whether any such notice was timely.
This case involved a plaintiff who suffered a severe injury to his right middle finger while attempting to disengage his sailboat from a transient mooring in Manhasset Bay that lacked a pennant line and pickup float. The court found that the mooring service company Meyran Marine Services was negligent in failing to properly prepare the mooring for use, but also determined that the plaintiff was 50 percent contributorily negligent in the manner he handled the shackle and carabiner. Based on this apportionment of fault and review of comparable damage awards, the court awarded the plaintiff a net total of $147,500 for past and future pain and suffering plus future medical expenses.
The case involved Nathaniel Harris suing the Town of Islip Housing Authority and others for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and negligence stemming from his 2005 arrest and 2008 dismissal of grand larceny charges related to housing benefits. The Town Defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them as barred by statutes of limitations and for failure to file a timely notice of claim. The court granted dismissal of the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, finding them time-barred under applicable New York laws including CPLR and General Municipal Law provisions, but denied dismissal of the negligence claim without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff time to address the notice of claim requirement under Housing Law.
This case involves a Section 1983 lawsuit by a middle school student and his mother against a school district, its board, and two officials, alleging that school officials violated the student's Fourth Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights by subjecting him to a pat-down search and boot removal based on an accusation of drug sales, as well as asserting a derivative claim by the mother. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants for insufficient service of process and to dismiss the mother's claims as solely derivative. The court denied the motion to dismiss the individual defendants, finding a factual dispute regarding service, but granted the motion to dismiss the mother's claims. The core reasoning for dismissing the mother's claims was that Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for derivative injuries to the parent-child relationship absent direct interference with the mother's own constitutional rights.
In this case, plaintiff Carl Hoops, an employee of Keyspan Energy and National Grid USA, sued his employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation related to shift differentials. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the claim was preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act because resolving the overtime dispute first required interpreting the collective bargaining agreement governing his employment, and Hoops had not exhausted the CBA's grievance procedures. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff's FLSA claim depended on a threshold determination of his contractual rights to shift differentials under the CBA, which must be resolved through the agreement's administrative remedies before a federal court could address the statutory claim. The court found no basis to excuse the failure to exhaust, as the plaintiff did not allege that his union breached its duty of fair representation, and an informal union statement did not suffice. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
