Comments on Recent Cases: May 2025

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_XIV#/media/File:Pope_Leo_XIV_on_the_loggia.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 Limits Third-Party Deposition

Parties in American litigation not only often have the power to conduct deposition interviews of the other parties; normally they can compel non-parties, too.  But this power, however, is not unlimited.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff sued a school, claiming a school employee abused him as a child.  The plaintiff’s therapy records reflected that a sibling had also abused him, and the school demanded that the sibling submit to a deposition.  The appeals court affirmed the trial court decision to quash, or cancel, the subpoena since the sibling’s testimony had “little connection, if any” to the plaintiff’s claims.

Cases like this illustrate the limits of the power to compel third party depositions.

Court Permits Tenant to Withdraw Waiver

Courts enforce agreements in litigation, but they also have to decide what counts as an agreement.  Often, an agreement needs to require two sides to agree to something; a unilateral statement therefore may receive different treatment than a bilateral agreement.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, the court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a landlord, seeking to hold a tenant to its previous statement that it was waiving its rights to renew a lease.  The court held that, since the waiver was unilateral, and since the landlord suffered no prejudice from relying on it, then the tenant was free to withdraw the waiver and pursue the renewal.

Decisions like this illustrate how courts evaluate the enforcement of unilateral statements.

Court Decides Dutch Legal Issue Before Discovery

American courts often apply foreign law when deciding a dispute. This is because the question of which court has the power to hear a lawsuit is different from the question of which country or state’s rules govern the relevant issues. When another country’s law applies, parties often submit expert opinions from foreign lawyers about the applicable law. applies to a case.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, one issue in dispute was the amount of taxes defendant owed pursuant to Dutch law. Both sides submitted expert opinions on the subject. The court affirmed the trial court decision, which decided the issue before discovery, after criticizing the plaintiff’s expert opinion and agreeing with the defendant’s expert’s analysis.

Cases like this illustrate how U.S. courts apply foreign legal concepts.

Court Rejects Tortious Interference Claim Where Plaintiff Alleges Business Purpose Behind Conduct

Plaintiffs in litigation often allege that a defendant interfered with their business relationships with third parties.  But to prevail on a tortious interference claim, a plaintiff may need to allege that the defendant acted solely out of malice and not for some other reason.  This may be hard to allege when the plaintiff’s real allegation is that the defendant acted selfishly.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a business claimed that internet figure Mr. Beast interfered with its business through online posts.  But it did not allege that he committed a crime or lied.  And, since it alleged that his posts were part of a campaign to pressure the plaintiff into transferring a business interest to him, the court held that the posts were not made solely out of malice, but instead had a business purpose, and so could not support a tortious interference claim.

Decisions like this illustrate the technical rules for tortious interference claims.