News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[02/15] In re K.P.
The juvenile court's termination of parental rights of both parents over their son is affirmed, where substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings and the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the parent-child relationship exception to the statutory preference for adoption.

[02/14] In re A.A.
In a case in which an incarcerated mother's parental rights were terminated, the juvenile court order of termination is affirmed, where: 1) the juvenile court was not required to consider placing the child with the mother where she was not a nonoffending parent and where custody had previously been removed upon a finding of risk that had not been alleviated; and 2) the mother presented no material change of circumstances to justify a modification of the dispositional order where she was still incarcerated at the time of the petition.

[02/14] In re Michael G.
On parents' appeal of orders terminating their parental rights over their son under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the findings and orders of the juvenile court are affirmed, where: 1) although the juvenile court erred when it did not order a brief continuance of the hearing to allow time to receive the child's psychological evaluation and an updated report from his therapist, the error was harmless in light of other evidence supporting the finding that the child was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time; and 2) there was ample evidence to support the juvenile court's finding there were no applicable exceptions to termination of parental rights.

[02/10] Marriage of Thorne
In marital dissolution proceedings involving the division of property interests in the husband's military pension, the trial court's modification of the judgment to divide the pension according to the "time rule" is reversed, where: 1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the judgment under the relevant statutes of limitations; 2) the omitted-asset exception to the statutes of limitation did not apply, as the words of the judgment expressly divided the entire pension; and 3) the extrinsic-mistake exception did not apply, as the judgment was not unlawful and any mistake by the wife was intrinsic.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[02/21] Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Manufacturing Co.
On a claim under Labor Law section 240(1) brought by a worker injured when he fell from a ladder in a factory while cleaning a product manufactured by his employer, the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the claim, affirmed by the Appellate Division, is affirmed, where the plaintiff was not engaged in an activity the statute protects.

[02/21] Posner v. Lewis
In an action for prima facie tort and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations stemming from pressure and influence exerted by the defendants upon school officials who denied the plaintiff tenure, the order of the Appellate Division denying the defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed, where the absolute immunity from civil liability for instigating official action articulated in Brandt v Winchell, 3 NY2d 628 (1958) could not be extended to protect the alleged course of conduct, which involved blackmail, intimidation and threatening conduct allegedly directed at the plaintiff.

[02/21] Thomas H. v. Paul B.
In a defamation action alleging that the defendants falsely and maliciously stated that the plaintiff had raped and molested the defendants' daughter, the Appellate Division's grant of summary judgment to the defendants is reversed In light of factual discrepancies, where: 1) under the circumstances alleged, a reasonable listener would have understood that the defendants intended to label the plaintiff as a child rapist; and 2) the alleged statements would be actionable even if they were couched in the form of an opinion and even if they were derived from what the defendants' daughter told them.

[02/17] American States Insurance Co. v. LaFlam
In a dispute over whether an insurance company was liable to pay a settlement amount under an uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) policy issued to an injured driver's employer and containing provisions that imposed a three-year contractual limitations period on UM/UIM claims and specified that the limitations period began to run on the date of the accident, the following question is certified to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: In light of the UM/UIM statute and Rhode Island public policy, would Rhode Island enforce the two provisions of the contractual limitations clause in this case?

Read More

Probate Trusts

Read More