Ornstein v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 12In case where plaintiff, a hospital nurse, was exposed to HIV when she was stuck by a blood-filled hypodermic needle that had been left in the bed of an AIDS patient, but she did not contract HIV, restricting plaintiff to only presenting proof that she experienced mental anguish for a period of six months following the needle-stick is reversed as plaintiff produced prima facie proof that she suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and other emotional distress for more than six months after exposure and, thus, she should have been allowed to seek recovery for those injuries at trial.
CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECURITIES LAW
Financial Indus. Regulatory Auth., Inc. v. Fiero, No. 2Judgment against defendant securities representative for refusal to pay fines and costs imposed for carrying out a “bear raid” and violating federal securities laws and rules, and summary judgment for plaintiff, is reversed as state courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.
CONTRACTS, LANDLORD TENANT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Munroe, No. 16An agreement by tenants to pay an illegal rent for a rent-stabilized apartment, in exchange for an agreement by the landlord to let the tenants use the apartment as a second home, is void and cannot be enforced by either party.
GOVERNMENT LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW
Yarborough v. City of New York, No. 3In case where plaintiff tripped and fell in a pothole, dismissal of complaint by appellate division is affirmed as defendant city was entitled to summary judgment since plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact as to whether city created a defective condition within the meaning of an exception, which requires that the affirmative negligence of the city immediately result in the existence of a dangerous condition.
INDIAN LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
Spota v. Jackson, No. 1New York Indian Law section 8 does not grant the County Court the discretion to determine, independent of the Indian nation, that respondent was not an “intruder” upon tribal land.