Comments on Recent Cases: October 2025

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween#/media/File:Greenwich_Village_Halloween_Parade_(6451249051).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.

Litigation News Published My Column About Judges’ Use of AI

Litigation News published a column I wrote about the possibilities and challenges of judges using generative artificial intelligence.  I wrote this article without ChatGPT, which may make this article quaint by future standards.  But on the whole, I am optimistic about what technology can bring to the justice system.

Court Holds Plaintiff’s Sworn Statement Sufficient to Avoid Summary Dismissal

Courts may dismiss litigation on summary judgment when there is no evidence that supports one side.  Sometimes a party’s own self-serving statement may not be enough evidence to preclude summary judgment and justify a trial, but often it is.

For example, in a recent decision by the state appeals court in Manhattan, a bicyclist sued the driver of a car that hit him.  The driver of the car and another witness both testified at deposition that the driver had a green light and the cyclist dangerously ran a red light, precluding his claim.  The cyclist testified differently, that he had the green light and the driver had the red.  The trial court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff’s testimony was not credible as a matter of law, but the appeals court reversed, holding that a trial was necessary to decide who was right.

Cases like this illustrate the burden a party needs to meet to avoid summary judgment.

Labor Law Allows Highly Paid Executives to Recover Attorney’s Fees When Seeking Settlement Payment Due

If a defendant fails to pay money due to a plaintiff, the plaintiff needs to pay her own lawyer’s fees.  But special rules apply in some situations when the plaintiff seeks wages due from an employer.  It can be unclear when these rules apply to bonuses for high salary executives.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an employer agreed to pay five months severance to a former employee.  It only paid three, and so the employee sued for the remaining two.  The employer claimed that this payment is a “wage supplement” and therefore not subject to the Labor Law provision allowing the employee to collect attorney’s fees.  The court agreed with the employee that recent amendments to the law state that the payment qualified under the law, even though the employee was a highly paid executive.

Cases like this illustrate issues that arise when employees litigate for wages due.

Court Holds Arbitrator’s Past Work for Party Did Not Disqualify Him

Courts are reluctant to challenge the decisions of arbitrators.  A major reason is that the purpose of arbitration is to provide a fast procedure without endless challenges and appeals.  And while courts are willing to entertain arguments about the merits of an arbitration during procedures to enforce and vacate arbitral decisions, they often defer.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, the television anchor Chris Cuomo sued the arbitration provider of an arbitration in which he is a party against the news network CNN.  He alleged the arbitrator failed to disclose that the firm he used to work for had represented CNN and that he himself had represented CNN in 2003.  The appeals court affirmed the rejection of the challenge, holding that these omissions were not serious enough to justify disturbing the arbitrator’s decision.

Cases like this illustrate the deference courts grant to arbitrators.

Court Orders Lawyer Who Made Frivolous Objection to Pay Attorney’s Fees

Different courts have different rules about discovery.  In New York, depositions have seven hour limits.  And while the rule does not expressly state that breaks do not count towards the seven hours, an appeals court recently held that they do not.

In that case, a lawyer stopped the deposition after seven hours, but after only about three hours of testimony.  Opposing counsel complained to the judge and the judge made the lawyer pay opposing counsel’s attorney’s fees since the objection to proceeding was frivolous.  The appeals court affirmed, holding that, if breaks counted towards the seven hours, people could abuse the system.

Cases like this illustrate a court’s ability to punish lawyers for making frivolous arguments.