This Week at the Court of Appeals

At the beginning of each week that the Court of Appeals hears oral arguments, we will do our best to preview for you the civil cases we are following that will be argued that week.  Full summaries of all cases can be found on the Court of Appeals website.  Here is the complete list for this week and a brief summary of the cases we are watching:

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Geraci v. Probst - whether the original publisher of a libelous letter could be responsible for its subsequent publication in Newsday

Flemming v. Barnwell Nursing Home and Health Facilities, Inc. - whether a member of a class action who successfully raises objections to a settlement reached on behalf of the class can recover attorney's fees for bringing the objections

Kirschner v. KPMG LLP - the Second Circuit certified the following question to the Court, "would the doctrine of in pari delicto bar a derivative claim under New York law where a corporation sues its outside auditor for professional malpractice or negligence based on the auditor's failure to detect fraud committed by the corporation...?"  New York Civil Law has a further description of the case and issues involved.  

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Gasques v. State of New York - accident occurred when Gasques's paint hose caught on something and his hand was crushed between the motor control and bridge as he reached for the motor and his partner continued to raise his end of the scaffold. The majority held that while the accident was tangentially related to effects of gravity, the accident was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by the statute. The dissent argued that the scaffold did not protect the plaintiff from the distinctly separate elevation hazard created by the need to untangle hose lines while suspended on a tilting platform.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Cusumano v. City of New York - plaintiff claimed that he slipped on debris at the top of the stairs and was unable to grab the handrail to stop his fall because it was too close to the wall.  At issue is whether Administrative Code Secs. 27-127 and 27-128 (duty to maintain building in a safe condition) provide a sufficient basis to support the plaintiff's claim that the handrails did not provide proper finger clearance.