Court of Appeals March Session: Arguments of Interest for March 29, 2017

The Court of Appeals' March Session concludes on Thursday, March 29, 2017 with three criminal appeals on the argument docket (the Court's case summaries can be found here). The Court will hear arguments on the following issues: (1) whether a police detective’s warrantless search of a parolee’s car, which revealed a gun and ammo, was justified, …

The Supreme Court Holds that NY Credit Card Surcharge Law Regulates Speech

In Expressions Hair Design v Schneiderman, the Supreme Court today held that New York General Business Law § 518, which bans the imposition of credit card surcharges on customers, though permits retailers to offer a discount to those who pay in cash, regulates retailers' speech, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit to decide whether …

Court of Appeals March Session: Arguments of Interest for March 28, 2017

The Court of Appeals' March Session continues on Wednesday, March 28, 2017 with three cases on the argument docket (the Court's case summaries can be found here).  The Court will hear argument today on the following issues: (1) whether the prosecutor should be given the right to rebut an agency defense raised by the criminal …

A Panel of the Second Circuit Holds It is Constrained by Precedent to Dismiss Title VII Sexual Orientation Discrimination Claim

In Christiansen v Omnicom Group, Inc., a panel of the Second Circuit holds that it is contrained to dismiss the plaintiff's Title VII sexual orientation discrimination claims under the Court's precedent in Simonton v Runyon, but revives the plaintiff's gender stereotyping discrimination claim as stating a separate claim from the barred Title VII claims.  Chief Judge Katzmann …

Second Circuit Rejects Law Firm Challenge to NY Rules Barring Non-Lawyer Investment in Law Firms

In Jacoby & Myers, LLP v Presiding Justices of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Departments, the Second Circuit rejected a law firm's challenge to NY's rules barring non-lawyer investment in law firms.  The Court held that lawyers do not have First Amendment rights to associate and petition by accepting non-lawyer investment, and even if they …

Court of Appeals March Session: Arguments of Interest for March 22, 2017

The Court of Appeals' March Session continues on March 22, 2017 with three cases on the argument docket (the Court's case summaries can be found here). The Court will hear arguments on the following issues: (1) whether, after  convenience store robbery, exigent circumstances existed to justify the police’s warrantless entry to and search of the …

Court of Appeals March Session: Arguments of Interest for March 21, 2017

The Court of Appeals' March Session begins on March 21, 2017 with three cases on the argument docket (the Court's case summaries can be found here). The Court will hear arguments on the following issues: (1) whether a reasonable inference of damages is sufficient to plead a fraud based claim, or whether the plaintiff must …

First Department Questions Propriety of Rule Limiting Liability for Domestic Animals to Viscious Propensities

In Scavetta v Wechsler, the First Department affirms the dismissal of negligence claims against the owner of a dog that, when leashed to a bicycle rack, dragged the rack into the street injuring the plaintiff. Although the Court noted that it was constrained to dismiss the case by the Court of Appeals' vicious propensities rule in …

In Case of First Impression, First Department Holds RMBS Trustee Has Standing to Enforce Putback Rights

In Natixis Real Estate Capital Trust 2007-HE2 v Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC, the First Department holds, in a case of first impression in NY, that the Securities Administrator of a residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) trust has standing to bring an action to enforce putback rights, in addition to the standing normally granted to …

In Basis PAC-Rim Opportunity Fund (Master) v TCW Asset Mgt. Co., the First Department holds loss causation lacking in a residential mortgage backed securities fraud case where the investment tanked at  the same time as the housing market. The Court clarified that it is not impossible to show fraud in the event of a market …