In Three Procedural Decisions, Court Tackles Apportionment and Jurisdiction
Patrick M. Connors of Albany Law School summarizes three significant civil procedure decisions handed down by the New York Court of Appeals during its 2016-2017 term. There is something here for both the personal injury lawyer and the commercial litigator alike.
August 22, 2017 at 12:00 AM
28 minute read
This piece summarizes three significant civil procedure decisions handed down by the New York Court of Appeals during its 2016-2017 term. Given our space limitations, and the length of some of the Court's important decisions, we have addressed only a portion of the holdings in this arena. There is something here for both the personal injury lawyer and the commercial litigator alike, with an emphasis on those decisions that are most relevant to everyday practice in the Empire State. Readers searching for a discussion of other recent developments in New York civil practice, including decisions from various other courts, will want to review the biannual supplement to Siegel, New York Practice (Thomson, Connors ed., January 2017 Supplement).
Court of Appeals Does Not Allow Apportionment of State's Fault in Supreme Court Action.
Two critical and complicated aspects of New York civil procedure clashed in Artibee v. Home Place, 28 N.Y.3d 739 (2017): court of claims jurisdiction and CPLR Article 16. In Artibee, plaintiffs sued defendant in supreme court for injuries sustained while driving on a state highway after a branch from defendant's tree fell and struck plaintiff's car. Plaintiff also sued the state of New York in the court of claims. This type of scenario, in which a plaintiff must commence two separate actions in two different courts to ensure a proper recovery, presents a whole host of procedural problems including jurisdictional issues, the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact, and the apportionment of fault between potentially responsible parties who are not before the court. See Siegel, New York Practice §17 (West 5th ed. 2011).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRecent Developments With Personal Jurisdiction in Aviation Accident Products Liability Litigation
15 minute readAttorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment
5 minute readCPLR 5501(a)(1) and the Reviewability of Final Orders on Appeal From a Final Judgment: Reconciling a Departmental Schism
16 minute readDecision of the Day: Postal Service Shows Media Outlets' Requested Change of Address Data Is Protected
Trending Stories
- 1A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 2A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
- 3The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 4Data-Driven Legal Strategies
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250