Previous month:
February 2008
Next month:
April 2008

Other NY Legal Blogs

Blawgs_2 I'm in the process of revising my "New York Law Blogs" blogroll, since a number of the blogs listed there right now are defunct.  It's been a while since I updated my blogroll and I know that there are a lot of new blogs out there, not all of which I'm aware of.

Sooo, if there are any New York law-related blogs that any of you, my dear readers, might recommend that are not yet included on my blogroll, please list them in the comments. (Feel free to list your own blog).  I won't necessarily be able to include every blog listed in the comments, due to space limitations, but will be sure to carefully peruse all blogs listed.

Thanks for your help and continued readership!


The New York Legal Blog Round Up

Blawgs It's time for the weekly round up of interesting posts from my fellow New York blawgers:

New York Attorney Malpractice Blog:

New York Personal Injury Law blog:

New York Public Personnel Law:

Simple Justice:

Wait a Second!:



Blogrolling

Thank_u_languages_3 Thanks to the following blogs for recently mentioning or adding a permanent link to Sui Generis to their permanent blogrolls:


Define That Term #276

Dictionary_2 Last week's term was, in honor of our ex-governor, naked option, which is defined as:

An opportunity to buy stock at a fixed price, offered by a seller who does not own the stock to back up the promise. If the buyer wants to exercise the option, the seller must purchase the stock at market price to make good on the offer.

Edward Wiest got it right, although David Gottlieb's definition wasn't necessarily all that far from the mark!

Today's term is:

nolle prosequi.

As always, no dictionaries, please.


The New York Legal News Round Up

Latest_news It's time, once again, for the weekly round up of interesting New York law-related news headlines:


The Never-Ending Day

Drlogo11 This week's Daily Record column is entitled "The never-ending day."  The article is set forth in full below and a pdf of the article can be found here.

My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

******

The flu season in Rochester has been vicious this year, due to the mass proliferation of a particularly virulent, vaccine-resistant strain that knocked otherwise healthy adults off their feet for a week or more. The flu affected the lives of many working parents for weeks on end as one family member after another succumbed to the illness.

In my case, my youngest child was particularly hard hit since she developed recurrent ear infections and a lingering upper respiratory infection that morphed into a serious croup infection. The difficulties encountered by families with dual working parents when an illness such as the flu strikes can sometimes seem insurmountable, since it is nearly impossible to conduct “business as usual” when work, family life and illness collide.

As an example, I offer the following description of one day in my life that exemplifies how challenging it can be balance work, family and life in the face of an illness such as the flu.

To set the stage, my youngest had a horrible cough, with the annoying side effect of her vomiting during severe coughing spells. This seemed to occur, for the most part, late at night when she was in bed.

The following is a crazy, and yet fairly typical, day for me since my entire family was hit by the flu 7 weeks ago:

6:30 a.m. Wake up, shower, and get ready for the day.

7:45 a.m. Eat breakfast and help get older child ready for school, although my husband had the day off, so it was mainly his job.

8 a.m. Check and respond to e-mails, read news headlines online. Post to one of my blogs.

8:30 a.m. Leave for the office.

9 a.m. Arrive at the office. Pick up files and discuss pending pro- jects with colleagues and my wonderful legal assistant, Heidi.

9:30 a.m. Go to grocery store to pick up food supplies for a dinner we’re making for people close to us who are going through a very dif- ficult time.

9:40 a.m. Go to TJMaxx to buy a birthday present for my eldest daughter’s friend’s birthday party the next day. Stand in line for 10 minutes.

10:15 a.m. Arrive home. Wrap the birthday gift. Get a cup of cof- fee, set iPhone alarm for

11:27 a.m. and perform legal research on West- law, while my husband and youngest daughter are at the pediatrician.

11:30 a.m. Go outside and get my eldest daughter off the school bus. Make her lunch. My husband arrives home and advises that our youngest has yet another very bad ear infection and has been pre- scribed stronger antibiotics.

11:45 a.m. to 3 p.m. Draft a letter to New York State Court of Appeals seeking leave to appeal a criminal case while my husband makes baked ziti for our friends.

3 p.m. Drive back to the office and oversee preparation of enclosures for letter to the Court of Appeals. It takes longer than expected.

4:30 p.m. Leave the office and drive home in the middle of a snow storm. Stop at the pharmacy to pick up antibi- otics for our youngest.

5 p.m. I arrive home. Everyone piles into the car and we head to our friend’s house with the baked ziti.

5:30 p.m. We arrive and visit for half an hour or so.

6 p.m. We then head to the Pittsford Wegmans and eat take out. The kids and my husband watch kid’s movies upstairs while I do the weekly grocery shopping downstairs.

8 p.m. We arrive home and give our youngest the antibiotics. She doesn’t like the taste and begins to cry, which causes her to cough. She promptly vomits right onto to the piles of laundry waiting to be put away, which consist of freshly washed sheets and blankets that were vomited on two nights prior.

8:05 p.m. I clean her up and take kids upstairs to get them ready for bed. My husband cleans up the mess, throws the soiled bed linens into the washer and puts away the groceries.

8:30 p.m. The kids are in bed, but don't settle down until about 9 p.m. We attempt to watch television, but begin to fall asleep on the couch around 9:45, so off to bed we go.

3 a.m. Our youngest wakes up coughing and can’t go back to sleep. I’m “on duty” since my husband has to work the next day. I finally manage to get her back to sleep at 4 a.m. or so.

The next day, while my husband is at work, my youngest develops pink eye and the birthday party the eldest was supposed to attend  is canceled at the last minute since the birthday girl is sick. And so it begins — yet another never-ending day in the life of a flu-infested household with two working parents.


The New York Legal Blog Round Up

Blawgs Fellow New Yorkers, I ask you--where in the world is Spring? Alas, it certainly hasn't yet visited Upstate NY this cold Monday. Have any of you seen it yet?  If so, send it along my way!

Spring-like weather or not, my fellow New York blawgers have been busily posting away.  Here's a round up of interesting posts from the past week:

Indignant Indigent:

Juz the Fax:

New York Legal Malpractice Blog:

New York Legal Update:

No-Fault Paradise:

  • LMK (discusses 3d Dept. case)

Simple Justice:

Wait a Second!:


Define That Term #275

Dictionary_2 The most recent term was floating easement, which is defined as:

n. an easement (a right to use another's property for a particular purpose) which allows access and/or egress but does not spell out the exact dimensions and location of the ease.

Jim Rose's guess was incorrect, but funny.

Today's term is, in honor of our ex-governor:

naked option.

As always, keep your dictionaries shut, per favore.


The NY Court of Appeals Considers the Issue of Grave Injury Yet Again

Gavel2 On Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals handed down Fleming v Graham, 2008 NY Slip Op 02502.  At issue was whether the plaintiff suffered from a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" thus constituting a "grave injury" under Workers Compensation law s. 11. 

In reaching its decision, the Court noted that the legislative intent behind the enactment of WCL s. 11 was "to protect employers by limiting third-party actions against them 'except in extremely limited, defined circumstances.'"

The Court then turned to the task of determining whether a facial injury is a "permanant and severe...disfigurement" and concluded that:

While no conceivable standard can capture in toto the highly limited class of "severe" facial disfigurements contemplated by section 11, we nonetheless conclude that an injury disfigures the face when it detrimentally alters the plaintiff's natural beauty, symmetry or appearance, or otherwise deforms. A disfigurement is severe if a reasonable person viewing the plaintiff's face in its altered state would regard the condition as abhorrently distressing, highly objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly. In finding that a disfigurement is severe, plaintiff's injury must greatly alter the appearance of the face from its appearance before the accident. The foregoing standard, ordinarily one for the court as a matter of law, removes the inquiry from plaintiff's subjective self-assessment and most closely approximates what the Legislature contemplated.

Applying that standard, the Court held that the plaintiff's injuries did not rise to that level in this case:

The photographs in the record show numerous scars. However, they demonstrate a steady progression from the initial injuries to scarring, to significant recovery...While in some cases that question is one properly for the jury, we determine that, on the facts of this case, Fleming's injuries do not rise to the level of a "severe" disfigurement. Although there are cases where a reasonable person might view multiple scarring as satisfying the standard we articulate here, this is not one of them.

Likely a frustrating decision for the third-party plaintiff (thanks to Louis Schepp's comment for pointing out the error in my original post) in this case since his case appears to be an exception to the general rule that the issue of grave injury is one for the jury.  Also frustrating is that it's a decision purporting to offer guidance that, in my opinion, offers very little and gives trial courts great leeway in deciding summary judgment motions on this "issue of fact" that can sometimes, apparently, be an issue of law, should a court be so inclined to interpret it as such.