Recent legal news from New York

The statute of limitations, as we have commented recently, is a social policy which seeks to limit the backlog of potential claims now sitting in virtual warehouses around the nation.  You’ve been harmed, and that harm is actionable.  Society has decided that certainty of business and personal life requires that such claims be brought, or after a certain period, just abandoned.  View Full Post
NYS Senator Gillibrand To Co-Sponsor Marijuana Justice Act As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, marijuana, whether used for medicinal or recreational purposes, is classified as a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The CSA prohibits the manufacturing, distributing, dispensing or possession of certain controlled substances, including marijuana and marijuana-based products and services. View Full Post
The statute of limitations serves to freshen and re-freshen the litigation warehouse.  Claims and potential claims are warehoused, and then sometimes brought out.  Policy considerations require that there be limits on how long a claim can be stored.  When the sue-by date arrives, the question of a statute of limitations must be decided, as in Collins Bros. View Full Post
How can majority business owners legally rid themselves of a problematic minority owner? Not by transferring the business’s assets to another entity for no consideration. That was the conclusion of Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich last month in a lawsuit over a minority shareholder’s stake in Bareburger, Inc., owner of its namesake restaurant chain. View Full Post
Reading legal malpractice cases is an exercise in human sadness and unfortunate circumstance.    Okello v Schwartzapfel, P.C.  2018 NY Slip Op 30402(U)  March 12, 2018  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 154971/2017  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth  is no exception.  The case illustrates the intersection between mental illness, insanity and tolling of the statute of limitations.  View Full Post
Freeman v Brecher  2017 NY Slip Op 07949 [155 AD3d 453]  November 14, 2017  Appellate Division, First Department is a series of “no” determinations.  Not Legal Malpractice, not Judiciary Law § 497,, not breach of fiduciary duty. “Plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice in connection with an underlying settlement fails to state a cause of action in the absence of allegations that the “settlement .  View Full Post
Filefax, Inc. (“Filefax”), an Illinois company that intimately handled sensitive Personal Health Information (“PHI”), paid $100,000 to the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). The payment stemmed from, when still in business, Filefax allegedly improperly disclosing the PHI of approximately 2,150 people when not properly securing such information in an unlocked truck on Filefax property, as well as granting access to PHI to people who should not have been granted access. View Full Post