I attended oral argument in Balbuena v. IDR Realty, Inc. yesterday at the New York Court of Appeals.  As I have discussed in numerous posts (see here and here), the issue in Balbuena is
the following: whether an injured, undocumented
alien can seek and recover future lost wages he or she would have earned in the
United States but for his or her injuries sustained within the scope of his
employment in this country. The Appellate Division, First
Department in Balbuena relied on the reasoning in Sanango v. 200 E.
16th St. Hous. Corp.,.15 A.D.3d 36, 788 N.Y.S.2d 314 (1st Dep’t 2004)
— an appeal addressing the same issue the First Department decided on
the same day as Balbuena — holding that the injured plaintiff was not
entitled to the future lost wages he would have earned in the United States but
for his injury. It is important to note
that the Appellate Division, Second Department in Majlinger v. Cassino
Contracting, Inc., 802 N.Y.S.2d 56 (2d Dep’t 2005) arrived at an opposite
conclusion.

There were two questions that the Judges of the Court kept asking the litigants during the argument: (1) whether there should be a different rule for those illegal aliens who gain employment by fraudulent means, as opposed to those where the employer fails to ask for documentation of citizenship; and (2) whether the Court should adopt a broad rule encompassing all situations concerning the issue, or merely decide the narrow issue before it.

The Court was extremely cognizant that any rule it is going to craft needed to be broad enough to stem more litigation on the point.  However, how far the Court will go and in which direction? 

Frequent participant at "New York Civil Law" Reed Podell did a great job arguing for Plaintiff’s employer.