Category Archives: Litigation

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Litigation is not mathematics. There is not always a universally accepted equation or answer. And as we often tell clients: Any similarity between justice and our justice system may be purely coincidental. Outcomes are often dependent upon the experience-based tendencies of the trial court, or the composition of a jury or appellate court panel.

Many considerations go into filing a lawsuit, such as the various theories of liability to be prosecuted, the nature of the relief sought, and the cost-benefit analysis based upon the anticipated expense of litigation. But occasionally, in a suit to be pursued in New York City, an important threshold consideration is in which of the five counties the proceeding should be filed.

This was originally published on the SGR blog.

The middle of the 2019-2020 Term of the Court featured only a handful of dispositions on civil matters, but no landmark decisions. Two opinions by Judge Stein, relating to the General Business Law and the  arbitration process, do provide templates for  future GBL  claims and arbitration proceedings.

Plavin v. Group Health Inc.
March 24, 2020

Question: The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit asked the Court of Appeals to decide whether Steven Plavin sufficiently alleged consumer-oriented conduct to assert claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for damages. An insurance company’s allegedly made materially misleading representations directly to the City of New York’s employees and retirees about the terms of its insurance plan to induce them to select its plan from among the varioous health insurance options made available to current and former City employees.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

A life coach and a yoga instructor walk into a bar. Well, not really.

Linnea Wexler sued Jennifer Marvin in Small Claims for Court for breach of contract. Wexler appeared pro se and Marvin was represented by counsel. Both parties testified but neither side called any witnesses.

The parties entered into a Coaching Sessions Agreement. Wexler agreed to provide Marvin a minimum of 10 hours of life coaching techniques and counseling in exchange for 40 hours of pre- and post-natal yoga sessions. The Contract stated that Wexler was not a licensed medical doctor, psychologist, Master’s in Family Therapy professional, or a Master’s in Social Work professional.

Wexler testified that she was a Master Certified NLP Coach, a Master Certified Practitioner of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, a Master Certified Practitioner of Time Line Therapy, and a Master Certified Practitioner of Hypnotherapy. The Contract stated that “the services you receive are not licensed in this state, nor are they regulated by a governmental body.”

This originally appeared on the SGR Blog.

“Game Change”: Court Holds “Gig” Courier to be an Employee (Not an Independent Contractor) Entitled to Unemployment Compensation
Will Ruling Retroactively Apply?

In a landmark decision, Matter of Vega (Postmates Inc. Commissioner of Labor)[March26, 2020], the Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether or not a deliveryman—who was free to make his own hours, choose what assignments to take and was also available to work for others—was an employee or an independent contractor. The issue arose in the context of a claim by a courier for unemployment compensation.

Question: Was the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that a former Postmates, Inc. courier, and others similarly-situated, were employees for whom Postmates was required to make contributions to the unemployment insurance fund supported by substantial evidence.

Answer: Yes. There was record support for the Board’s finding that the couriers were employees.