Legal Blog of Attorney Greg Curry

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...

In a recent case, Kobos v. Target Corporation , our local federal district court (the Eastern District of New York), dismissed a lawsuit against Target for employment discrimination. Not only is this a recent case, but it is useful in illustrating a number of legal issues re: discrimination lawsuits against employers. The plaintiff was a 62-year-old woman “of Polish nationality”. The Riverhead Target hired her around 2007 as a “Team Member”, to work in the store wherever needed. Eventually, the plaintiff was assigned to a specific department, where she had a supervisor. The plaintiff claimed that in March, 2014, the supervisor called the plaintiff “crazy” in front of co-workers for walking to work in a snowstorm; and after being reprimanded by the Store Team Leader for doing so, the supervisor began giving the plaintiff difficult and unfair work assignments, and reduced her hours. In late May, 2014, the plaintiff went on a medical leave of absence and never returned to wo...

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...

When you operate a restaurant or a bar, etc., sometimes customers get attacked by other customers/patrons--for whatever reason. So when can the restaurant be held liable in situations like that? In what is a horrible story, in 2010, an 8-year-old boy was at a Dave & Buster’s with his family at The Source Mall in Westbury. The boy was playing a game when he was suddenly attacked and stabbed 5 times in the back by a 23-year-old man who testified in the case that he went there to stab someone.  [The man plead guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 14 years in prison .] The boy (through his parents) sued the attacker (who has no money, I assume), Dave & Buster’s, and the Mall. The boy alleged Dave & Buster’s failed to provide adequate security, which would have prevented the attack. Dave & Buster’s got the case dismissed against them at the trial court level, and the boy appealed. In a recent decision, the Second Department affirmed that...

So held New York's highest court on February 13, 2018 . The case involved personal injuries. The plaintiff alleges she fell off a horse owned by the defendant, which caused the plaintiff severe spinal and brain injuries. She claims she now has trouble writing emails and forming coherent sentences, among other cognitive problems. The plaintiff testified at a deposition that she had had a Facebook account in the past, which contained lots of "private" photos (of her) and posts and messages before and after the accident. But she deleted the account six months after the accident. Defendant's attorneys wanted an authorization to see her entire Facebook account (photos, posts, messages, everything), so they could compare her quality of life before and after the accident. But she refused to give the defendant access to her account. After motions and appeals, the Court of Appeals has now ordered the plaintiff to turn over (1) all private Facebook photos taken before the...