Linton Mann Iii

February 15, 2022 | New York Law Journal

In 'People v. Wilkins', the Court of Appeals considered whether a defendant can retroactively waive his right to be present at a sidebar conference where the trial court questions a prospective juror concerning issues of potential bias or hostility.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

7 minute read

January 18, 2022 | New York Law Journal

In 'Estate of Kainer, et al. v. UBS AG et al.', the court affirmed the dismissal of a case on forum non conveniens grounds and, in doing so, reaffirmed that forum non conveniens motions are subject to the broad discretion of the trial court.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

7 minute read

December 14, 2021 | New York Law Journal

In this edition of their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr. examine a recent decision in which the court reaffirmed that expert testimony may be admitted regarding the factors associated with false confessions and that the admissibility of such testimony should be left to the discretion of the trial court.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

11 minute read

November 16, 2021 | New York Law Journal

In this edition of their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr. discuss 'Adar Bays v. GeneSys ID,' where the court recently clarified the application of state usury laws to corporations and to stock conversion options.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

6 minute read

October 19, 2021 | New York Law Journal

In this edition of their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr. discuss 'Aybar v. Aybar,' where the Court of Appeals considered whether a foreign corporation consents to general jurisdiction by New York courts when the corporation registers to do business and designates a local agent for service of process in New York in accordance with the requirements of New York's Business Corporation Law.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

9 minute read

July 20, 2021 | New York Law Journal

In this edition of their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr. discuss 'Simmons v. Trans Express,' where the court clarified the extent to which a small claims judgment will have preclusive effect in subsequent actions and also addressed the difference between res judicata and collateral estoppel—an issue that has plagued generations of first-year law students.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

6 minute read

June 15, 2021 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr. discuss Himmelstein v. Matthew Bender & Co., where the court recently considered the scope of the General Business Law's prohibition of deceptive acts or practices in a case against legal publisher Matthew Bender & Company.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

8 minute read

May 18, 2021 | New York Law Journal

The Court of Appeals recently considered a unique provision of the New York State Constitution—the "Forever Wild" provision—in a case involving the construction of 27 miles of snowmobile trails in the Adirondack State Park. In their Court of Appeals Roundup, Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr. discuss the case and how the The majority/dissent split in it illustrates the problem created by unfilled vacancies on the court.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

7 minute read

March 16, 2021 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr. discuss 'Doe v. Bloomberg, L.P.', in which the court upheld the dismissal of claims against former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and made clear that individual owners of a company may not be held vicariously liable as "employers" under the New York City Human Rights Law.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

7 minute read

January 19, 2021 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr. discuss 'Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings', in which the court held that the public policy rule prohibiting parties from insulating themselves for damages resulting from grossly negligent conduct only applies to contractual provisions that either completely immunize a party or provide for solely nominal damages.

By Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.

6 minute read