William T. Russell, Jr.

March 14, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Lynn K. Neuner and William T. Russell Jr. discuss a recent decision in which the court held that a non-state defendant is not entitled to apportion fault to the state where a private party and the state are alleged to be jointly liable for a personal injury plaintiff's non-economic losses.

By Lynn K. Neuner and William T. Russell Jr.

11 minute read

January 17, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. review a decision where the court found a defendant had entered into a binding agreement and was liable for breach despite the fact that its acceptance of a bid was expressly subject to the execution of a final agreement and despite the fact that the defendant expressly reserved the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to withdraw from sale any or all of the assets it had offered to sell.

By Roy Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

12 minute read

December 29, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup column, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss the court's decision addressing the circumstances in which a foreign bank's use of a correspondent bank account in New York will subject it to personal jurisdiction. In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that the manner in which the defendant used the services of New York correspondent bank accounts subjected it to personal jurisdiction in New York. The dissent in the case warned that the decision represents an “about-face” from a prior rule on which foreign banks have relied for four decades, but the majority and a concurring opinion by Judge Michael Garcia took great pains to reconcile their ruling with existing precedent. At the end of the day, the decision provides additional clarity as to the circumstances in which the use of a correspondent account will subject a foreign bank defendant to personal jurisdiction.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

13 minute read

November 15, 2016 | New York Law Journal

New York Court of Appeals columnists Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. analyze the court's decision dismissing a case based on the doctrine of champerty, in 'Justinian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG', a concept dating back to French feudal times. It is essentially a prohibition on the buying and selling of litigation claims and provides a defense to the party against whom the purchased or sold claim is asserted. The majority decision upholds the principles behind champerty, but recognizes that New York is a leading commercial center and center of commercial litigation and, accordingly, preserves the ability of sophisticated parties to engage in large-scale transactions that might otherwise run afoul of the prohibition on champerty.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

12 minute read

October 18, 2016 | New York Law Journal

New York Court of Appeals Roundup columnists Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss the significance of the Court of Appeals' decision that brings New York State in line with an increasing number of states in expanding the rights of single-sex parents with respect to child custody and visitation rights and in recognizing the evolution in the concept of "family" that has occurred in recent decades. The decision is a rare instance in which the court overturned its own earlier interpretation of a statute—something the court generally does only when the precedent was "contrary to the legislative purpose underlying the statute…unworkable or…impose[d]…hardship on litigants or the trial courts."

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

12 minute read

July 18, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss cases in which the court addressed the application of the common interest doctrine to communications shared between companies in the process of merging, affirmed the denial of summary judgment to two former AIG executives in a case brought by the Attorney General, and determined that a trial court's failure to meaningfully respond to a note from a deliberating jury does not require reversal as long as counsel had been given notice of the note's content.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

23 minute read

June 15, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss cases in which the court addressed the standard of review for analyzing a "going-private" corporate transaction, approved the rejection of a class action settlement that did not afford non-resident class members an opportunity to opt out, and denied an effort by state judges to obtain damages for the Legislature's failure to enact judicial salary increases.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

22 minute read

May 18, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. address cases in which the court found that there is no duty to remove lead paint from premises in which children only stay part-time, examined the requirements for establishing an evidentiary foundation for the introduction of DNA evidence, and found that parents or guardians may surreptitiously record interactions between their child and others if the child is deemed to have consented vicariously.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

22 minute read

April 20, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss a case upholding a smoking ban in state parks in New York City, a case finding defense counsel's failure to object to stereotyped and misogynist statements during summation did not amount to ineffective assistance, and a case finding a complaint arising out of an episode of reality television sufficiently stated a claim for breach of patient-physician confidentiality.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

23 minute read

March 16, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss cases addressing the sufficiency of the evidence necessary for false arrest and malicious prosecution claims to survive summary judgments and applying the Frye standard to expert testimony in a toxic tort case, along with a case concerning whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act precluded application of the FAA to compel arbitration of an insurance agreement.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

11 minute read