One of my favorite court decisions of 2009 was the Appellate Division, Second Department decision in Vinluan v. Doyle, 60 A.D.3d 237, 873 N.Y.S.2d 72. This is so because of the eloquent and impassioned defense of the constitutional right of an attorney to give, and a client to receive, advice of counsel. The case involved the simultaneous resignation of ten nurses from positions at a Smithtown, Long Island nursing home, Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, over pay and other working conditions, including being required to work as clerks for about $12 per hour and being housed in a single-family staff house with only one bathroom, inadequate heat, and no telephone service. The nurses were indicted for the misdemeanor offenses of conspiracy in the sixth degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and endangering the welfare of a physically-disabled person. (Among the patients at Avalon Gardens are chronically ill children who need the assistance of ventilators to breathe.) Felix Vinluan, the attorney who provided these nurses with legal advice, was also indicted for allegedly advising them to commit a crime. (more…)

It may be hard to find a more eloquent and impassioned defense of the constitutional right of an attorney to give, and a client to receive, advice of counsel than in the decision in Vinluan v. Doyle, 60 A.D.3d 237, 873 N.Y.S.2d 72 (Appellate Division, 2nd Department, January 13, 2009). The matter granted a petition for Article 78 review brought on by a group of ten nurses and their attorney to prohibit the Suffolk County district attorney from prosecuting, and Supreme Court justice from presiding over, a criminal case against the nurses, who were indicted for the misdemeanor offenses of conspiracy in the sixth degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and endangering the welfare of a physically-disabled person. The prosecution came in the aftermath of their simultaneous resignations from positions at a Long Island nursing home. The attorney who provided these nurses with legal advice was also indicted for allegedly advising them to commit a crime. (more…)

A construction worker who was pouring concrete at Trump SoHo, a condominium hotel in SoHo, fell 42 floors to his death on the afternoon of January 14, 2008, when a wooden mold used to set the concrete collapsed. Another worker was thrown from the 42nd floor, but was caught in a safety net that extends outward from the 40th floor, fire officials said. He was brought to safety in a construction bucket and hospitalized for injuries that the authorities said were not life threatening. Two other workers were treated for minor injuries. The cause of the collapse was unclear. (more…)

Courts contnue to find it important that schools fulfill their non-delegable duty of protecting their students.  Recently, the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Matter of Binghamton City School District v. Peacock, Docket No. 502329, held that public policy supports a no-leniency standard for teachers that instill harm on their students.  The court clearly delivered this message when it held that a two-year suspension for a teacher who engaged in a “grossly inappropriate”  relationship with a sixteen year old student was too lenient.  (more…)

The scaffolding that broke last Friday (12/7/07), causing a pair of brother window washers to plunge 47 stories (550 feet) on Manhattan’s upper East Side, had been cited for 10 violations in June, including four that were repeat violations, state records show.  Inspection records from the New York State Labor Department show that the scaffolding had been inspected twice in the past two years – and 10 violations were issued, but they were not severe enough to warrant a stop-work order.

Why one brother died and the other survived is a mystery. (more…)

It has become commonplace for attorneys and others sending faxes and e-mails to include at the end of such communications standard language stating that the contents thereof are confidential and priviledged. Such standard language should provide no comfort, however, for senders and receivers of e-mails that use an employer’s server. A decision by Hon. Charles E. Ramos of the Supreme Court, New York County, holds that a pro forma notice at the end of an e-mail message did not inure the attorney-client priviledge to the e-mail when an employer’s e-mail server is used.  (more…)

An interesting discussion contrasting the technology, data storage characteristics and the discovery process of e-mails with instant messages (IM) appears in an article by attorneys Michael B. de Leeuw and Eric A. Hirsch in the “E-Discovery” special section of the November 5, 2007 New York Law Journal. IM is quickly becoming the medium of choice for informal communication in the workplace, offering far greater efficiency, speed and immediacy than e-mail. (more…)