Comments on Recent Cases: June 2026
Image credit: The Obamas at the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center, more details on Wikimedia Commons
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 Rejects Tortious Interference Claim That Lacked Independent Wrong
Plaintiffs frequently allege that a defendant tortiously interfered with their business. And while a defendant may have done something that hurt the plaintiff’s business prospects, a court may dismiss the claim unless the defendant lied, acted for no reason except to harm the plaintiff, or committed violence some other independently wrong act.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Brooklyn, a commercial tenant who operated a restaurant had stopped paying rent. The landlord’s demand for unpaid rent went unanswered, so it changed the locks and rented to another tenant. Among other claims, the plaintiff sued for tortious interference since the lockout meant the restaurant lost patrons. The court affirmed dismissal of the claim since changing the locks was done under the terms of the lease, and not purely to harm the plaintiff. The action was not itself illegal or an independent legal wrong.
Decisions like this illustrate the requirements of a tortious interference claim.
Court Holds Pattern of Conduct Extends the Statute of Limitations
Defendants in litigation often cite the statute of limitations to argue that the court should dismiss a claim because the plaintiff waited too long before asserting it. But applying time limits to claims is not always straightforward.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an employee claimed her employer discriminated against her for a long time because she was a woman and then ultimately fired her. The employer argued that the statute of limitations made it immune for the allegedly discriminatory acts besides the termination since they had taken place too far back in the past. The appeals court rejected the argument, however, holding that the termination was the culmination of a pattern of discrimination, making the whole series of acts relevant to her discrimination claim.
Decisions like this illustrate a challenge in applying a statute of limitations in employment discrimination claims.
Court Holds Conduct Not Part of a Pattern That Extends the Statute of Limitations
As we saw in the prior case, employment discrimination plaintiffs usually have a list of events about which they complain in litigation. While each of the events could support a discrimination clam, some of them may still be excluded from a lawsuit for being too distant if they are not tightly linked to actions within the time limit for filing a claim.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an employee asserted a discrimination claim in 2023 against her employer. The statute of limitations under the Human Rights Law in New York is three years. The plaintiff listed numerous incidents in support of her claim, including events in 2012, 2014, and 2018. She contended they were part of one “continuing pattern of unlawful conduct” at her former company that continued through 2020. The appeals court rejected the argument, holding that the older events involved different people and so were not part of a pattern that would make them actionable more than three years later.
Decisions like this illustrate how a statute of limitations can apply in employment discrimination claims.
Court Affirms Dismissal for Lawyer’s Failure to Respond to Notice
Courts will sometimes forgive lawyers for missing deadlines, but not always. And if a lawyer has a history of not complying with rules and the lawyer does not promptly fix problems on her own, courts may rule against the lawyer’s client on that basis alone.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff’s lawyer asked the court to reverse the dismissal of a claim. The lawyer had a deadline to file a statement that the plaintiff was ready for trial, but missed the deadline. The court warned her office of the deadline to extend. Instead, the lawyer filed the statement six months after being prompted to do so a second time and over a year after the court’s first notice. The lawyer said the delay was an accident caused by her staffing changes and an office move, but since this wasn’t the lawyer’s first error, the court denied relief without examining whether the client’s claim had merit.
While courts are not always this strict, decisions like this illustrate why we need to be clear about deadlines.
Court Rejects Fraud Defense When Defendant Signed Merger Clause
New York courts permit an expedited litigation process that allows plaintiffs to sue to collect money without the prolonged process of discovery and trial. Due to the simplicity of a settlement or payment agreement, they may go straight to a request for judgment without serving a complaint on the defendant.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff sought to enforce an agreement to collect money from a defendant in the expedited process, after a $13 million sale fell through. The defendant challenged the settlement agreement, claiming it was not just to collect money and that the plaintiff lied to get the defendant to sign the agreement, or "fraudulent inducement."
The plaintiff, defendant, and a third party had signed a settlement agreement that contained a standard “merger” or "entire agreement" clause that said neither side relied on the other party's outside representations to come to an agreement. The defendant claimed the clause was only boilerplate language. But a party may not be able to assert many defenses in such a process. They can only argue within what the contract says. The purpose of a merger clause is that no amount of emails or other communications would supersede the signed contract.
The appeals court rejected the defendant's arguments, holding that the agreement was just for the payment money and that the clause in the agreement in which the defendant agreed he did not rely on any representations prevented him from claiming he was defrauded into the agreement.
Decisions like this illustrate how merger clauses can make enforcing an agreement easier, but also how a case can be litigated for two years despite a clear contract.