NY Minute

Legal Bits & Bytes 3

Here is yet another installment of Legal Bits & Bytes. 

At the outset, I apologize for the backdrop.  It was an experiment--one that I will likely not duplicate. 

Also, I've now got a cold, right on the tail of the flu, so I'm not at 100%.  Bear with me as I clear my throat, fidget, and otherwise distract you from the topic at hand. 

But, as I've said in the past--the only way I can do this on a regular basis is if I try to complete each video in one take.  Otherwise, it becomes far too time consuming.

So, with those caveats, enjoy the video.  Links to the content discussed can be found below the video:


Continue reading "Legal Bits & Bytes 3" »

Legal Bits & Bytes 2


In this video, I discuss the following:

Via Criminal Defense Law With an Apple: Via Simple Justice:

The New York Minute

It's time for the bi-weekly Sui Generis New York Minute. 

In today's video I discuss Aaron Charney's discrimination lawsuit pending against legal giant Sullivan & Cromwell, as more fully explained here (gaycitynews.com)or here (New York Observer).

I also discuss Judge Kaye's recent announcement in which she threatens to commence a lawsuit in order to obtain raises for New York judges as explained here (New York Times).

(And, I once again would like to emphasize that I do not have a lisp.  My recording equipment is less than stellar.  It's not me!)

New York Minute--Programming Note

The "New York Minute" feature will be a bi-weekly feature from here on in.  It takes an inordinate amount of time to create each video (although that might not appear to be the case!) and as a result, once every other week seems like a good balance. 

I plan to post about one of the recent New York Court of Appeals decision later on today in addition to a new "Crimes and Misdemeanors" post.  Tune in next Friday for another "New York Minute."

The New York Minute

It's Friday.  Welcome week's edition of the Sui Generis New York Minute.

In today's video I discuss the State's Memorandum of Law submitted in opposition to the lawsuit challenging the lawyer advertising rules.

I also discuss this post from Flea, a physician's blog, which is in response to this post from Eric Turkewitz's New York Personal Injury Law Blog.  In Eric's post, he rationally discusses effective cross-examination techniques for attractive physician defendants in medical malpractice cases.  In Dr. Flea's post, he personally attacks Eric and suggests that physicians should refuse to treat plaintiff's medical malpractice attorneys and their families:

How does Eric Turkewitz look at himself in the mirror in the morning?

His wife and kids look like decent enough people (scroll down on link for picture). Where does Turkewitz find doctors in New York City willing to care for them?

Scott Greenfield responded to Dr. Flea's highly personal attack in this post at the Simple Justice blog.

The New York Minute

Welcome to the Sui Generis New York Minute. 

In this week's video, I discuss a Third Department case mentioned in this week's New York Legal News Round Up, Filiberto v Herk's Tavern, Inc., 2007 NY Slip Op 01448.   A number of issues were raised in this appeal, including a dram shop claim, but the aspect of the decision that I found to be the most interesting was the Court's discussion of foreseeability:

Even if Bracchi had agreed to take decedent home, decedent choking on an unchewed piece of roast beef was not a reasonably foreseeable risk of stopping for a bite to eat. "Foreseeability of risk is an essential element of a fault-based negligence cause of action because the community deems a person at fault only when the injury-producing occurrence is one that could have been anticipated." Accepting decedent's extreme level of intoxication and the difficulty that such an intoxicated person would have in chewing and swallowing roast beef, as testified to by plaintiff's medical expert, there is absolutely no proof that such difficulties would be apparent to anyone other than perhaps a medical professional. Because it was unforeseeable that decedent was in danger of choking by consuming a meal, Bracchi had no duty to protect him from the risk of this remote possibility.

My commentary on this issue could have been clearer, but my main point was that under the circumstances of this case, although the the risk of choking on food after drinking alcohol was one that could certainly be envisioned, the possibility of choking was so remote that it was one that would not have been reasonably anticipated by the average person.   

Which, you may notice if you're on the ball, is pretty much what the Third Department said.  As a result, after giving this further thought, I've decided that I actually agree with the Third Department's statement in that regard.  So, in the immortal words of Emily Litella--"Never mind."

I also discuss this article which was mentioned in my recent Crimes and Misdemeanors post wherein we learn of a prosecutor who mistakenly alleged that a defendant claimed that a unicorn was driving his car.  My favorite quote from the article: 

"Mr. Holliday has other serious problems, but this is not one of them," County Attorney Dennis Paxinos said of the unicorn alibi.

The New York Minute

In today's video I mark the momentous occasion of receiving over 10,000 visitors from Fark.com readers yesterday and also discuss this recent Sui Generis post regarding the issue of whether the response by an attorney who reads my blog to a comment posted by someone seeking the services of a New York City lawyer constituted "solicitation" under the newly promulgated New York lawyer advertising rules.

New York Minute

In today's Sui Generis New York Minute, I discuss this prior post and the issue of whether there is a First Amendment Right to access pornography at the public library.  I also comment on one of the stories from this week's Civil Rights Round Up.

On a technical note, this video is a bit dark since I forgot to turn on the light behind me.  Sorry about that.  I'll get the hang of this eventually.

The New York Minute

In today's New York minute, I discuss the issue of prosecutorial discretion as raised in this recent post.  I also touch upon the recent Sui Generis three part series of posts regarding the NY lawyer advertising rules.

I got off to a slow start in this video, but bear with me.  I'm still getting the hang of this.  And, in case you were wondering, I don't have a "sibilant s" in my normal speech.  That seems to be a byproduct of my less than stellar video recording equipment.