Comments on Recent Cases: June 2025
Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Zohran_Mamdani#/media/File:2025_NYC_Dem_Primary_Election_11.jpg
Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.
Court Dismisses Negligence Claim That Does Not Establish Causation
Negligence plaintiffs in litigation often complain that the defendant did something wrong and that they suffered damages. But that may not be enough: courts require plaintiffs to establish that the defendant’s misconduct was the cause of the damages, and that but for the misconduct, the outcome would have been different.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff claimed his lawyer was negligent because he failed to raise an argument. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss, but the appeals court reversed. It did so because the plaintiff could not establish that the defendant’s negligence caused her to suffer damages because her new lawyer could have raised the same argument and, for other reasons, she may have lost her case anyway.
Cases like this illustrate the need to establish causation in negligence claims.
Court Dismisses Claim Pursuant to Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine
Even if a court has jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, it may still decline to permit #litigation against it when the subject matter of the claim is largely abroad pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, plaintiffs from Kazakhstan sued, among others, a defendant from Kazakhstan about corruption in Kazakhstan. The appeals court affirmed the trial court dismissal of the case since so much of the case concerned another country. The court stressed, however, that no one factor was dispositive of the issue, but instead considered several factors.
Cases like this illustrate how courts apply the forum non conveniens doctrine.
Court Holds a Corporate Affiliate is Not a Landlord
In a dispute over a lease, New York courts are willing to consider a defendant in litigation to be a landlord, even if it is not the specific person or entity that signed a lease. But courts will not treat just anyone to be a landlord.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, tenants sued two entities, claiming that they were the landlords that failed to provide working elevators to their high-floor apartments. One of the defendants had signed the lease, and the other was its “corporate affiliate.” The appeals court reversed a decision by the trial court that held that the lawsuit could proceed against the corporate affiliate, that neither owned the building, nor collected rent, nor was on the lease.
Cases like this illustrate how courts consider who can be liable as a landlord.
Court Prevents Disclosure of Mediation Statement
Many people seek mediation to resolve disputes rather than initiate or proceed with litigation. As part of the mediation process, parties often submit a written statement to the mediator to explain their positions. These statements are often confidential, especially since they may make concessions in an effort to strike a settlement. Courts respect that confidentiality.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a company sued its former law firm for malpractice, claiming that it drafted an agreement poorly, which resulted in it settling for a low amount of money against a third party. The law firm demanded to see the mediation statement the company submitted in its mediation with the third party. The trial court ordered the company disclose it, but the appeals court reversed, noting that it would not be relevant evidence.
Cases like this illustrate how courts protect mediation statements from disclosure.
Court Holds Delay in Refund Demand Unreasonable As a Matter of Law
Some contracts or laws require people to act “reasonably.” But since people can disagree on what is “reasonable,” many lawsuits involving that question are difficult to resolve before trial where each side can present its evidence of “reasonableness.” Still, sometimes a court is willing to rule on the question before trial.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a purchaser paid $18 million for jewelry without getting an appraisal. Over two years later, she demanded a refund. The court held that this delay was unreasonable “as a matter of law,” meaning that the court did not need to hear evidence about whether the delay was actually reasonable given the circumstances or in the relevant industry.
Decisions like this illustrate situations where courts make reasonableness decisions as a matter of law.