Comments on Recent Cases: September 2025

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!#/media/File:Jimmy_Kimmel_June_2022.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.

I Wrote a Column About the Ethical Duty of Competence with Technology

Litigation News recently published a column I wrote about the ethical duty for lawyers who represent clients in litigation to have a basic proficiency with technology.  I encourage my colleagues to have their children or young associates help them print the article out so they can read it.

Court Considers Forbearance Fee to be Usurious

Courts refuse to enforce agreements that require debtors to pay usurious interest rates.  Lawyers cannot avoid this by disguising high interest as if it were something else, like a fee.  And courts will consider usury as an affirmative defense, even when the agreement does not plainly state an illegal interest rate.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a borrower defaulted on a loan.  The lender entered into a new agreement with the borrower, giving the borrower more time to pay, but also charging more interest and a “forbearance” fee.  The borrower defaulted again and the court refused to enforce the new agreement, treating the fee as interest and making the total interest due excessive.

The lender sued his law firm, arguing it committed malpractice by drafting an unenforceable agreement.  While the trial court dismissed the case, the appeals court reversed.

Cases like this illustrate how complex the usury rules are and how diligent all parties to a loan transaction need to be to ensure compliance.

Court Refuses to Compel Irrelevant Evidence

Parties to litigation have broad rights to obtain evidence in discovery.  But these rights are not unlimited and courts may deny motions to compel the production of evidence if it is irrelevant.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Albany, a plaintiff with no lawyer sued a car dealer in 2019 who sold him a used car in 2013, seeking $100 million in damages.  The appeals court likely included those details to emphasize the unreasonable position the plaintiff asserted.

The plaintiff demanded the defense lawyer let the judge review all documents that he reviewed while drafting the defendant’s response to the complaint.  The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the motion since those documents would not “assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity.”

Cases like this illustrate both the need for evidence to be relevant for a court to compel its production and the need to seem reasonable for a court to take a litigant’s concerns seriously.

Court Holds Homeowner is Not Employer of Contractor Employee

A plaintiff may pursue negligence litigation against any defendant that owes a her a “duty of care.” But in many jurisdictions, statutes provide additional remedies to plaintiffs who are harmed by specific defendants, like employers at a worksite. But then parties often litigate who counts as an employer.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Brooklyn, a worker sued the owner of a home at which he was working to remove a pool who hired the contracting company that employed the plaintiff. The plaintiff was hurt on the job and sued under a state law that confers liability on employers who fail to maintain a safe workplace. The trial court refused to dismiss the claim, but the appeals court reversed, holding that the owner of the premises is not necessarily the employer. It noted, “mere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200.”

Cases like this illustrate the burden a plaintiff needs to carry to succeed on a labor law claim.