Comments on Recent Cases: March 2026
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.
French Newspaper Le Figaro Publishes My Article About Tariff Decision
Le Figaro recently published an article by my good friend Jean Claude Beaujour and me about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs. We discussed the majority opinion’s reasoning and offered insights to French businesses on how they could respond to the U.S. decision. Le Figaro is one of “the big three” French newspapers, alongside Le Monde and Libération.
Court Applies Common Interest Privilege to Dismiss Defamation Claim
People are understandably upset when others say false things about them, and they may consider defamation litigation. When false statements arise in a public process, such as in city records or in court, the lies may do more damage than they would have in a less official forum. The subject of those statements may therefore feel a greater desire to sue. But a privilege protects certain types of statements.
In a recent case before the state appeals court in Brooklyn, a police officer and the chief of police both wrote letters to a town supervisor complaining about the other. The officer sued the chief of police, claiming the letter contained lies. The court affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit because the letters were subject to a “common interest” privilege between the town supervisor and the chief of police since they both had an interest in the subject matter of the letter, an investigation into the police officer’s allegations from her original letter. The common-interest privilege can be overcome by showing malice. Because the officer could not produce evidence to state that the sole motive for the letter was ill will, the statements were immune from a defamation claim.
Cases like this illustrate how assertions of privilege apply in defamation claims.
Court Dismisses Defamation Claim Arising From Claim Plaintiff Was Lying
People may sue for defamation if someone lies about them. But courts are specific about what qualifies. Courts may dismiss defamation claims when the statement at issue is more of an opinion than a false statement.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a customer sued a liquor store for calling him a liar in a letter to his credit card company during a chargeback dispute. The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the defamation claim because saying the customer was “lying” in the context of this letter was an opinion and not a statement of fact. In other contexts, however, saying someone is lying could be considered a statement about a specific fact that is true or not and thus subject to litigation.
Cases like this illustrate how courts dismiss defamation claims on expressions of opinion.
Court Holds Service of Tax Sale Violates Due Process Rights
The law often provides directions for how to serve documents and so litigants who follow these rules may believe that they accomplished what they were trying to do. But not always; a party may assert reasons why a court should still disregard the service.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Brooklyn, a landowner did not pay property taxes. The local government enforced a tax lien, mailed the senior landowner a notice that it would sell her property, then sold her property to the plaintiff to pay the tax deficiency. The government followed the applicable rules for notifying people of tax sales. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to “quiet title,” that is, confirm that he owned the property. In the meantime, the original landowner died. The new defendant, the heir to the landowner’s estate, opposed the lawsuit. The defendant argued that the mailed notice was insufficient since the landowner had dementia and was considered incompetent. The trial court had held that the landowner’s mental status was insufficient to defeat the lawsuit based on the nature of the service, but the appeals court reversed, holding that the government’s service on the landowner, while it followed the rules, still deprived her of due process. The plaintiff’s clear title of the property was revoked.
Cases like this illustrate how a notice that technically follows the rules of service may still be challenged.
Court Reverses Permission to File Late Answer
If someone sues a defendant, the law requires the defendant to respond to the litigation. If the defendant misses its deadline, courts sometimes grant motions for extensions, but litigants need a good reason. And a court’s leniency has limits.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Brooklyn, a bank sought to foreclose on a home mortgage. The homeowner appeared at a settlement conference, but then did not file an answer to the bank’s lawsuit for several years. The homeowner asked the court for permission to file a late answer, and the court eventually agreed. The appeals court, however, reversed, stating the delay was too long and the homeowner’s protest that she didn’t know she had to respond was insufficient.
Cases like this illustrate how courts consider motions for late answers.
Court Enforces Contractual Limitations Period for Claims
The statute of limitations bars how long after an issue parties can assert claims in litigation. But parties can agree in a contract to a shorter time limit than a statute allows. And a provision in a contract that says that parties do not waive their claims by not asserting them right away does not necessarily contradict the parties’ agreement to a shorter limit.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a contractor sued a bank. The bank moved to dismiss, claiming the parties’ contract included a one-year limit for claims that the plaintiff missed. The contractor argued that another provision in the agreement, a waiver clause, should supersede the shorter limitation period. That provision says the contractor would not waive any claims it did not promptly assert. The trial court had denied the motion to dismiss, but the appeals court reversed and dismissed the complaint.
Cases like this illustrate how courts uphold contractual limitations periods.