DAVID L. SINGER'S REVIEW

Suffolk County's Justice Spinner Nullifies Mortgage

2009-11-25T11:40:00.000-08:00

Newsday Article Linked To By The Big Picture

Source:
Judge cancels LI family’s mortgage, berates lender
JOHN VALENTI AND JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER
Newsday.com, November 25, 2009
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/judge-cancels-li-family-s-mortgage-berates-lender-1.1621785

Answer of Rajaratnam By Akin Gump in SEC Case

2009-11-24T11:08:00.000-08:00

Raj Rajaratnam's Court Response to S.E.C. Lawsuit

Report on Global Corruption

2009-11-05T12:18:00.001-08:00

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL - Global Corruption Report 2009

CIT Bankruptcy Filing

2009-11-04T14:11:00.001-08:00

CIT Bankruptcy Petition

The Downside of Economic Growth and Technology

2009-10-20T05:20:00.000-07:00

Quote From The Post of Richard Posner:

I am one of those timid souls who worry about the downside of technological advance and economic growth. I find the prospect of continued increases in population and income, and of the technological innovations necessary to cope with those trends, unsettling.

Source:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/
October 15, 2009
Food Prices

Res Ipsa Loquitor

2009-08-11T04:34:00.000-07:00

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v BFP One Liberty Plaza Co.
2009 NY Slip Op 31776(U)
July 30, 2009
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: 602422/05
Judge: Emily Jane Goodman

In order to establish a basis for invoking the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must allege that the event is the type that
would not ordinarily occur without someone's negligence, it must be caused
by an instrumentality that is within the exclusive control of the defendant,
and it must not result from any contribution by the plaintiff.
St. Francis Hosp. v. Kambat, 89 NY2d 489, 494 (1997).

Down Payment on Real Estate

2009-08-11T04:25:00.000-07:00

Geroulanos v Maynard
2009 NY Slip Op 51712(U)
Decided on August 7, 2009
Supreme Court, Kings County
Battaglia, J.

A "vendee who defaults on a real estate contract without lawful excuse, cannot recover the down payment." (Cipriano v Glen Cove Lodge No. 1458, B.P.O.E., 1 NY3d 53, 62 [2003] [quoting Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galho, 68 NY2d 373, 378 (1986)]; see also Verolla v Beechwood Carmen Bldg. Corp., 43 AD3d 913, 914 [2d Dept 2007]; Micciche v Homes by Timbers, Inc., 18 AD3d 833, 834 [2d Dept 2005].)

Where the buyer fails to close on a "time of the essence" closing date, and the seller is ready, willing, and able to perform, the buyer has defaulted, and the seller may retain any funds deposited. (See No. 1 Funding Center, Inc. v H & G Operating Corp., 48 AD3d 908, 911 [3d Dept 2008]; Capece v Robbins, 46 AD3d 589, 590 [2d Dept 2007].) [*11]

On the other hand, if the seller fails to establish a "time of the essence" closing date, and cannot convey title in accordance with the contract, the buyer is, at the least, entitled to a return of the deposit. (See Waldman v LDK Realty, Inc., ___ AD3d ___, 2009 NY Slip Op 4894, * 2 [2d Dept June 9, 2009]; Arker Cos. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 47 AD3d 739, 740 [2d Dept, 2008]; Karl v Kessler, 47 AD3d 681, 682 [2d Dept 2008]; Singh v Gopaul, 43 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2d Dept 2007].)

Defense Research Institute - Commissioned Report of Future of Litigation

2009-08-09T06:22:00.000-07:00

The Defense Research Institute commissioned a report on the Future of Litigation. See this link for the PDF of the report...

Landlord's Liability For Negligent Security

2009-08-09T03:21:00.000-07:00

Flynn v Esplanade Gardens, Inc.
2009 NY Slip Op 31743(U)
July 2, 2009
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: 111631/05
Judge: Joan A. Madden

A landlord has the duty to take “minimal precautions to protect against the reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third persons.” Maria S. v. Willow Enterprises, Inc., 234 AD2d 177, 178 (1st Dept. 1996) (citations omitted). However, no such duty arises unless it is shown that the possessor of the land “knows or has reason to know from past experience of a likelihood of conduct by third persons, which is likely to endanger the public.” Id. Whether an entrance was maintained negligently is therefore determined by assessing both the foreseeability of the incident at issue and whether minimal precautions were taken by the defendant to prevent such an incident. Florman v. City of New York, 293 AD2d 120, 124 (1st Dept. 2002) (“A landlord . . . has a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants . . . from foreseeable harm, including the criminal conduct of third parties.”). In order for a plaintiff to establish the foreseeability of a third person’s criminal conduct, “the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location.”

Assumption of Risk - Minor

2009-07-31T19:38:00.000-07:00

Lewin v United Skates of Am., Inc.
2009 NY Slip Op 51627(U)
Decided on July 28, 2009
Supreme Court, Kings County
Kramer, J.

"In general, a person who is injured while voluntarily participating in a sporting event has no legal recourse if his injuries were caused by an occurrence or condition which was a known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequence[ ] of the participation'.

Relieving an owner or operator of a sporting venue of liability for inherent risks of engaging in a sport is justified when a consenting participant is aware of the risks, has an appreciation of the nature of the risks, and voluntarily assumes the risks.

A premises owner continues to owe a duty to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be. If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, the plaintiff has consented to them and the defendant has performed its duty.

Additionally, the application of the assumption of the risk doctrine in assessing the duty of care owed by an owner or operator of a sporting facility requires that the participant have not only knowledge of the injury-causing defect but also appreciation of the resultant risk, but awareness of risk is not to be determined in a vacuum. It is, rather to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff." Blanco v. Elmont Union Free School District, 179 Misc 2d 918 (NY Sup 1999)

KFC Rule

2009-07-18T10:25:00.000-07:00

Nassau County District Court applies the "KFC" Rule to an Attempted Notice of Termination from Assisted Living Facility to Resident Behind on "Rent" Payments

Arcadia Mgt., Inc. v Schillan
2009 NY Slip Op 29305
Decided on July 16, 2009
District Court Of Nassau County, First District
Fairgrieve, J.

The KFC rule is a well-settled principle that was established by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky Fried Chicken, supra , which reads as follows:

A notice of termination of tenancy signed by an agent or attorney who is not named in the lease as authorized to act for the landlord in such matters, and which is not authenticated or accompanied by proof of the latter's authority to bind the landlord in the giving of such notice, is legally insufficient to terminate the tenancy. (Id.)

The rule is further explained in Rasch's Landlord & Tenant Including Summary Proceedings, 4th ed., Hon. Robert F. Dolan, §23:48, which states:

A notice of termination must be signed or similarly authenticated by, or at least purport to emanate from, the party who has undertaken in the lease to the give the notice It is well-settled that where the lease provides for notice to given by the [*3]landlord, a notice of termination signed by an agent, or by an attorney, who is not named in the lease, and which notice is not accompanied by proof of authority of the agent of the attorney to bind the landlord in giving the notice, may be disregarded by the tenant. Such notice is insufficient. (Id. at 210)

Rule - Challenging the ZBA

2009-07-17T02:53:00.000-07:00

ISDA - Int'l Swaps and Derivatives Association

2007-03-16T10:46:00.000-07:00

The ISDA is an organization promoting the standardization of these financial contracts.

For more Info: http://www.isda.org