FINDLAW: Daily Opinion Summaries for New York Court of Appeals - 03/18/08

CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTS, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE, REMEDIES

Watral & Sons, Inc. v. OC Riverhead 58, LLC, No. 32In an action to foreclose upon a mechanic’s lien against defendant-landowner’s property, the Court of Appeals finds counterclaiming landowner is not entitled to contractual indemnification for damages which exceed the scope of indemnification

CONTRACTS, DISPUTE RESOLUTION & ARBITRATION, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW

In the Matter of Henneberry v. ING Capital Advisers, LLC, No. 28Denial of an application to vacate an arbitrator’s award in an action involving termination of employment is affirmed where: 1) an employment agreement contained an arbitration clause that provided for dispute resolution by arbitrator of the underlying situation; and 2) the arbitrator’s decision was neither irrational nor did it exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on his power.

CORP. GOVERNANCE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, M&A

Appleton Acquisition, LLC v. Nat’l Housing P’ship, No. 36A limited partner who objects to a merger with another entity under Partnership Law section 121-1102 on the grounds that a transaction was premised on fraudulent or illegal acts by the general partner must raise them in an appraisal proceeding under the Partnership Law.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING

People v. Taveras, No. 30, 31 In appeals from convictions and sentences imposed “in absentia”, dismissal of defendants’ appeals following their capture after years of absence is affirmed where there was no abuse of discretion as the government established that it would suffer prejudice due to the absences, particularly in locating key witnesses to crimes and retrying the cases.

 

INJURY AND TORT LAW

Bernstein v. Penny Whistle Toys, Inc., No. 43In a dog bite case, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that the dog’s owner had any knowledge of its “vicious propensities”; and 2) for purposes of claims against third-party defendant, there was no evidence that third-party defendant was negligent.