On April 22, 2016, we noted six cases of interest from the oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the weeks of April 25, 2016, and May 2, 2016:
- Case No. 5: Red Zone LLC v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (argued Wednesday, April 27, 2016) (“Attorney and client–Malpractice–Alleged negligent drafting of agreement–whether plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment; limitation of actions–tolling–whether the Appellate Division erred in concluding that the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine; whether the courts below erred in dismissing defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence.”). See the transcript and the video.
- Case No. 79: Dryden Mutual Ins. Co. v. Goessl (argued Thursday, April 28, 2016) (“Insurance–Duty to defend and indemnify–Business general liability policy–whether the Appellate Division correctly determined that, for liability insurance purposes, defendant plumber was an independent contractor, not an employee, for defendant plumbing company when the alleged negligent acts occurred.”). See the transcript and the video.
- Case No. 80: Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (argued Thursday, April 28, 2016) (“Disclosure–Material exempt from disclosure–Communications subject to attorney-client privilege–waiver of privilege as to communications made between attorney and client in known presence of third party–Common-interest exception–whether the Appellate Division correctly held that the common-interest exception applies even where the parties’ common legal interest does not involve pending or reasonably anticipated litigation–application to communications relating to pending merger.”). See the transcript and the video.
- Case No. 97: Aetna Health Plans v. Hanover Ins. Co. (argued Wednesday, May 4, 2016) (“Insurance–No-fault automobile insurance–Whether a health care insurer that paid for medical treatment of an individual hurt in a car accident while driving a car covered by no-fault automobile insurance may maintain a reimbursement claim against the no-fault insurance carrier under principles of subrogation–11 NYCRR 65-3.11(a); Necessity for privity of contract; Whether the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of standing–Estoppel–Untimely disclaimer.”). See the transcript and the video.
- Case No. 75: CRP/Extell v. Cuomo (argued Wednesday, May 4, 2016) (“Interest–Actions in which recoverable–Dismissal of underlying proceeding to reform alleged scrivener’s error in condominium offering–whether the Appellate Division correctly held that Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding a motion for the award of prejudgment interest because the underlying reformation action/proceeding had been resolved, respondents in that action/proceeding sought release of funds in escrow plus interest while funds were held in escrow, and respondents did not seek an award of statutory interest in that prior
action/proceeding.”). See the transcript and the video.
- Case No. 96: Littleton Construction Ltd. v. Huber Construction, Inc. (argued Thursday, May 5, 2016) (“Contracts–Breach of contract–Joint venture for public school renovation projects–claim that operating agreement between the parties was fraudulent–whether material issues of fact were raised regarding forgery of the document; summary judgment.”). See the transcript and the video.