Category Archives: Litigation

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.

This was originally posted on the SGR blog.

The mid-2019/2020 term of the New York Court of Appeals did not result in any “blockbuster” civil law decisions. The Court, however, did release two opinions that demonstrate how the panel addresses the application of precedents, on the one hand, and substantive conflicts in the Appellate Divisions, on the other.

In the first case, over a stinging dissent, the Court adhered to a 1999 decision holding that a “stairway” may constitute a “sidewalk”  for tort liability purposes.  And in the second, the Court resolved a split in the Departments over whether the filing of suit by a New York attorney who did not (as required by law) maintain an office in the state,  was a curable violation.

This post originally appeared on the SGR blog.

Jared Schaefer was served food at Tony’s Sushi restaurant that contained peanuts, an ingredient that was not listed on the menu. He alleged that the peanuts caused him to suffer an allergic reaction. Schaefer alleged that the restaurant was negligent in failing to warn him of the presence of peanuts in the food, creating a dangerous condition, and in failing to disclose the presence of a potential allergen.

Tony’s moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it did not owe a duty to Schaefer, or, if it did owe a duty, that there was no causal connection between its alleged negligence and Schaefer’s injuries. Schaefer opposed the motion, arguing that triable issues of fact existed as to the duty owed by Tony’s and as to the causal connection between the presence of the alleged allergen and his injury.

This first appeared on the SGR Blog.

The mid-2019/2020 Term of the Court of Appeals did not result in any “blockbuster” civil law decisions. The Court, however, did release two opinions that demonstrate how the panel addresses the application of precedents, on the one hand, and substantive conflicts in the Appellate Divisions, on the other.

In the first case, over a stinging dissent, the Court adhered to a 1999 decision  holding that a “stairway” may constitute a “sidewalk”  for tort liability purposes.  And in the second, the Court resolved a split in the Departments over whether the filing of  suit by a New York attorney who did not (as required by law)   maintain an office in the state,  was a curable violation.