NYLE UPDATED ACTUAL QUESTIONS AND CORRECT
ANSWERS
Question:
Paul and Peter were married for 10 years and have two children. In 2019, Paul
lost his job. The financial stress deteriorated the marriage, which caused Peter
to file for divorce. Peter is seeking joint custody and maintenance from Paul.
How should the court calculate maintenance and child support?
A. The parties calculate child support and seek court approval for
maintenance
B. Child support should be calculated first
C. Maintenance should be calculated first
D. Child support and maintenance should be calculated concurrently
Answer:
(C) "Maintenance shall be calculated prior to child support because the
amount of maintenance shall be subtracted from the payor's income and
added to the payee's income as part of the calculation of the child support
obligation." DRL § 236 (B) (6) (c) (1) (g).
Question:
Susan and Carol got engaged on June 1, 2018. During this period, they
discussed a pre-nuptial agreement and orally agreed that neither party will
pay alimony in the event of a divorce. The couple wed on June 1, 2019. One
year and one day later, Carol filed for divorce after Susan cheated on Carol.
Susan is now an emotional wreck and has lost her job due to the stress. May
Susan seek alimony?
A. Yes, because the parties were married for more than one year
B. Yes, because the pre-nuptial agreement was not in writing
C. No, because a pre-nuptial agree-
ment denying alimony to each party was formed
D. No, because the parties were not married for up to 10 years
Answer:
(B) "An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be
valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing,
subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner
required to entitle a deed to be recorded." DRL § 236 (b)(3).
Question:
Paul recently formed Company, Inc. and serves as its president. After
establishing the board and shareholders, the company now wants to hire an
officer. The certificate of incorporation is silent on how an officer may be
elected. The company interviewed Jake and wants to elect him as an officer.
How may the company elect Jake?
A. Paul alone may elect Jake
B. The shareholders alone may elect Jake
C. The board alone may elect Jake
D. The board or shareholders may elect Jake
, Answer:
(C) "(a) The board may elect or appoint a president, one or more
vice-presidents, a secretary and a treasurer, and such other officers as it may
determine, or as may be provided in the by-laws. (b) The certificate of
incorporation may pro-vide that all officers or that specified officers shall be
elected by the shareholders instead of by the board." BCL § 715 (2021).
Question:
Brandon sued his former friend, Jason, after Brandon fell to the ground and
injured himself while leaving Jason's property. Brandon was on the property
to confront Jason about lying, but he had visited the property several times in
the past. If Brandon loses the case, it will be because:
A. Brandon was a trespasser
B. Brandon was an invitee
C. Jason did not maintain the property
with reasonable care
D. Brandon was a licensee
Answer:
(C) New York courts have "abandoned the classifications [of licensee,
trespasser, invitee] entirely and announced our adherence to the single
standard of reasonable care . . . ." Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 (1976). "An
owner, lessee or occupant of premises, whether or not posted as provided in
section 11-2111 of the environmental conservation law , owes no duty to keep
the premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, organized
gleaning as defined in section
seventy-one-y of the agriculture and markets law , canoeing, boating, trapping,
hiking, cross-country skiing, tobogganing, sledding, speleological activities,
horseback riding, bicycle riding, hang gliding, motorized vehicle operation for
recreational purposes, snowmobile operation, cutting or gathering of wood for
non-commercial purposes or training of dogs, or to give warning of any
hazardous condition or use of or structure or activity on such premises to
persons entering for such purposes." GOL 9-103.
Question:
Jennifer sued Adam in a special proceeding by filing a petition. Adam
responded with his answer and counterclaim, which raised a new issue.
Jennifer responded with a reply. Adam responded with a surreply and
separately asked for leave of court to file a motion to join another party.
Which of the following was NOT a proper response in the action?
A. Adam's motion to join another party
B. Adam's surreply
C. Jennifer's reply
D. Adam's counterclaim
Answer:
"Parties. The party commencing a special pro-ceeding shall be styled the
petitioner and any adverse party the respondent. After a proceeding is
commenced, no party shall be joined or interpleaded and no third-party
practice or intervention shall be allowed, except by leave of court." CPLR § 401.
"There shall be a petition, which shall comply with the requirements for a
complaint in an action, and an answer where there is an adverse party. There
,shall be a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such and there may be a
reply to new matter in the answer in any case. The court may permit such
other pleadings as are authorized in an action upon such terms as it may
specify. Where there is no adverse party the petition shall state the result of
any prior application for similar relief and
shall specify the new facts, if any, that were not previously shown." CPLR § 402
Question:
Allison had a great relationship with her daughter Elizabeth until Elizabeth
married David. Two years after the marriage, Allison used a pen to scratch out
the $200,00 she left to Elizabeth and wrote "$0" above that amount. All of the
other provisions in the will remained the same. Is Allison's revocation
effective?
A. Yes, because partial revocation of a will by physical act is permitted
B. Yes, because Allison entered a new amount above the scratched-out amount
C. No, because partial revocation of a will by physical act is not permitted
D. No, because the revocation violates public policy regarding the legal right to
marriage
Answer:
(C) "(1) A will or any part thereof may be revoked or altered by: (A) Another
will. (B) A writing of the testator clearly indicating an intention to effect such
revocation or alteration, executed with the formalities prescribed by this
article for the execution and attestation of a will." EPTL 3-4.1 Partial
revocation by physical act is not allowed.
Question:
Luke owned Blackacre and sold it to Timothy in January 2020. Timothy, a bona
fide purchaser, did not record the conveyance. In March 2020, Luke sold
Blackacre to Sarah, a bona fide purchaser, who recorded the conveyance in
March 2020. In April 2020, Timothy recorded the conveyance. Who owns the
property in May 2020?
A. Timothy, because he is the first bona
fide purchaser
B. Timothy, because he is the first bona fide purchaser and also recorded
C. Sarah, because she is the last bona fide purchaser
D. Sarah, because she is a bona fide purchaser who recorded first
Answer:
(D) New York is a race notice jurisdiction. "Every such conveyance not so
recorded is void as against any person who subsequently purchases or
acquires by exchange or contracts to purchase or acquire by exchange, the
same real property or any portion thereof, or acquires by assignment the rent
to accrue therefrom as provided in section two hundred ninety-four-a of the
real property law , in good faith and for a valuable consideration, from
the same vendor or assignor, his distributees or devisees, and whose
conveyance, contract or assignment is first duly recorded, and is void as
against the lien upon the same real property or any portion thereof arising
from payments made upon the execution of or pursuant to the terms of a
contract with the same vendor, his distributees or devisees, if such contract is
made in good faith and is first duly recorded." RPL § 291.
, Question:
On January 1, the defendant was served via deliver-and-mail service, but the
complaint was not served with the summons. The defendant served a written
demand for the complaint on January 31. The plaintiff served the complaint on
February 15. The defendant filed a notice of appearance on March 15. Was the
defendant's appearance timely?
A. Yes, because the defendant served a written demand for the complaint
which extended the time to appear
B. Yes, because the plaintiff did not serve the complaint with the original
service, which extended the time to appear
C. No, because the defendant served the demand for the complaint more than
20 days from the date of service
Answer:
(D) "If the complaint is not served with the summons, the defendant may serve
a written demand for the complaint within the time provided in subdivision
(a) of rule 320 for an appearance. Service of the complaint shall be made
within twenty days after service of the demand. Service of the demand shall
extend the time to appear until twenty days after service of the complaint. If
no demand is made, the complaint shall be served within twenty days after
service of the notice of appearance. The court upon motion may dismiss the
action if service of the complaint is not made as provided in this subdivision. A
demand or motion under this subdivision does not of itself constitute an
appearance in the action." CPLR § 3012.
See also CPLR § 320. "An appearance shall be made within twenty days after
service of the summons, except that if the summons was
served on the defendant by delivering it to an official of the state authorized to
receive service in his behalf or if it was served pursuant to section 303,
subdivision two, three, four or five of section 308, or sections 313 , 314 or 315 ,
the appearance shall be made within thirty days after service is complete. If
the complaint is not served with the summons, the time to appear may be
extended as provided in subdivision (b) of section 3012."
Question:
James filed an action against Bob. Bob filed a bill of particulars regarding
James' complaint then filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, which was denied.
During discovery, James serves Bob with interrogatories consisting of 10
questions, each with 2 sub-questions. Should Bob respond to the
interrogatories?
A. Yes, because the interrogatories did not exceed the maximum amount
permitted
B. Yes, because the bill of particulars was not demanded from the same party
C. No, because a bill of particulars was demanded in the case
D. No, because the interrogatories exceeded the maximum amount permitted
Answer:
(D) "Except as otherwise provided herein, after commencement of an action,
any party may serve upon any other party written inter-rogatories. Except in a
matrimonial action, a party may not serve written interrogatories on another
party and also demand a bill of particulars of the same party pursuant to
section 3041 . In the case of an action to recover damages for personal injury,
ANSWERS
Question:
Paul and Peter were married for 10 years and have two children. In 2019, Paul
lost his job. The financial stress deteriorated the marriage, which caused Peter
to file for divorce. Peter is seeking joint custody and maintenance from Paul.
How should the court calculate maintenance and child support?
A. The parties calculate child support and seek court approval for
maintenance
B. Child support should be calculated first
C. Maintenance should be calculated first
D. Child support and maintenance should be calculated concurrently
Answer:
(C) "Maintenance shall be calculated prior to child support because the
amount of maintenance shall be subtracted from the payor's income and
added to the payee's income as part of the calculation of the child support
obligation." DRL § 236 (B) (6) (c) (1) (g).
Question:
Susan and Carol got engaged on June 1, 2018. During this period, they
discussed a pre-nuptial agreement and orally agreed that neither party will
pay alimony in the event of a divorce. The couple wed on June 1, 2019. One
year and one day later, Carol filed for divorce after Susan cheated on Carol.
Susan is now an emotional wreck and has lost her job due to the stress. May
Susan seek alimony?
A. Yes, because the parties were married for more than one year
B. Yes, because the pre-nuptial agreement was not in writing
C. No, because a pre-nuptial agree-
ment denying alimony to each party was formed
D. No, because the parties were not married for up to 10 years
Answer:
(B) "An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be
valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing,
subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner
required to entitle a deed to be recorded." DRL § 236 (b)(3).
Question:
Paul recently formed Company, Inc. and serves as its president. After
establishing the board and shareholders, the company now wants to hire an
officer. The certificate of incorporation is silent on how an officer may be
elected. The company interviewed Jake and wants to elect him as an officer.
How may the company elect Jake?
A. Paul alone may elect Jake
B. The shareholders alone may elect Jake
C. The board alone may elect Jake
D. The board or shareholders may elect Jake
, Answer:
(C) "(a) The board may elect or appoint a president, one or more
vice-presidents, a secretary and a treasurer, and such other officers as it may
determine, or as may be provided in the by-laws. (b) The certificate of
incorporation may pro-vide that all officers or that specified officers shall be
elected by the shareholders instead of by the board." BCL § 715 (2021).
Question:
Brandon sued his former friend, Jason, after Brandon fell to the ground and
injured himself while leaving Jason's property. Brandon was on the property
to confront Jason about lying, but he had visited the property several times in
the past. If Brandon loses the case, it will be because:
A. Brandon was a trespasser
B. Brandon was an invitee
C. Jason did not maintain the property
with reasonable care
D. Brandon was a licensee
Answer:
(C) New York courts have "abandoned the classifications [of licensee,
trespasser, invitee] entirely and announced our adherence to the single
standard of reasonable care . . . ." Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 (1976). "An
owner, lessee or occupant of premises, whether or not posted as provided in
section 11-2111 of the environmental conservation law , owes no duty to keep
the premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, organized
gleaning as defined in section
seventy-one-y of the agriculture and markets law , canoeing, boating, trapping,
hiking, cross-country skiing, tobogganing, sledding, speleological activities,
horseback riding, bicycle riding, hang gliding, motorized vehicle operation for
recreational purposes, snowmobile operation, cutting or gathering of wood for
non-commercial purposes or training of dogs, or to give warning of any
hazardous condition or use of or structure or activity on such premises to
persons entering for such purposes." GOL 9-103.
Question:
Jennifer sued Adam in a special proceeding by filing a petition. Adam
responded with his answer and counterclaim, which raised a new issue.
Jennifer responded with a reply. Adam responded with a surreply and
separately asked for leave of court to file a motion to join another party.
Which of the following was NOT a proper response in the action?
A. Adam's motion to join another party
B. Adam's surreply
C. Jennifer's reply
D. Adam's counterclaim
Answer:
"Parties. The party commencing a special pro-ceeding shall be styled the
petitioner and any adverse party the respondent. After a proceeding is
commenced, no party shall be joined or interpleaded and no third-party
practice or intervention shall be allowed, except by leave of court." CPLR § 401.
"There shall be a petition, which shall comply with the requirements for a
complaint in an action, and an answer where there is an adverse party. There
,shall be a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such and there may be a
reply to new matter in the answer in any case. The court may permit such
other pleadings as are authorized in an action upon such terms as it may
specify. Where there is no adverse party the petition shall state the result of
any prior application for similar relief and
shall specify the new facts, if any, that were not previously shown." CPLR § 402
Question:
Allison had a great relationship with her daughter Elizabeth until Elizabeth
married David. Two years after the marriage, Allison used a pen to scratch out
the $200,00 she left to Elizabeth and wrote "$0" above that amount. All of the
other provisions in the will remained the same. Is Allison's revocation
effective?
A. Yes, because partial revocation of a will by physical act is permitted
B. Yes, because Allison entered a new amount above the scratched-out amount
C. No, because partial revocation of a will by physical act is not permitted
D. No, because the revocation violates public policy regarding the legal right to
marriage
Answer:
(C) "(1) A will or any part thereof may be revoked or altered by: (A) Another
will. (B) A writing of the testator clearly indicating an intention to effect such
revocation or alteration, executed with the formalities prescribed by this
article for the execution and attestation of a will." EPTL 3-4.1 Partial
revocation by physical act is not allowed.
Question:
Luke owned Blackacre and sold it to Timothy in January 2020. Timothy, a bona
fide purchaser, did not record the conveyance. In March 2020, Luke sold
Blackacre to Sarah, a bona fide purchaser, who recorded the conveyance in
March 2020. In April 2020, Timothy recorded the conveyance. Who owns the
property in May 2020?
A. Timothy, because he is the first bona
fide purchaser
B. Timothy, because he is the first bona fide purchaser and also recorded
C. Sarah, because she is the last bona fide purchaser
D. Sarah, because she is a bona fide purchaser who recorded first
Answer:
(D) New York is a race notice jurisdiction. "Every such conveyance not so
recorded is void as against any person who subsequently purchases or
acquires by exchange or contracts to purchase or acquire by exchange, the
same real property or any portion thereof, or acquires by assignment the rent
to accrue therefrom as provided in section two hundred ninety-four-a of the
real property law , in good faith and for a valuable consideration, from
the same vendor or assignor, his distributees or devisees, and whose
conveyance, contract or assignment is first duly recorded, and is void as
against the lien upon the same real property or any portion thereof arising
from payments made upon the execution of or pursuant to the terms of a
contract with the same vendor, his distributees or devisees, if such contract is
made in good faith and is first duly recorded." RPL § 291.
, Question:
On January 1, the defendant was served via deliver-and-mail service, but the
complaint was not served with the summons. The defendant served a written
demand for the complaint on January 31. The plaintiff served the complaint on
February 15. The defendant filed a notice of appearance on March 15. Was the
defendant's appearance timely?
A. Yes, because the defendant served a written demand for the complaint
which extended the time to appear
B. Yes, because the plaintiff did not serve the complaint with the original
service, which extended the time to appear
C. No, because the defendant served the demand for the complaint more than
20 days from the date of service
Answer:
(D) "If the complaint is not served with the summons, the defendant may serve
a written demand for the complaint within the time provided in subdivision
(a) of rule 320 for an appearance. Service of the complaint shall be made
within twenty days after service of the demand. Service of the demand shall
extend the time to appear until twenty days after service of the complaint. If
no demand is made, the complaint shall be served within twenty days after
service of the notice of appearance. The court upon motion may dismiss the
action if service of the complaint is not made as provided in this subdivision. A
demand or motion under this subdivision does not of itself constitute an
appearance in the action." CPLR § 3012.
See also CPLR § 320. "An appearance shall be made within twenty days after
service of the summons, except that if the summons was
served on the defendant by delivering it to an official of the state authorized to
receive service in his behalf or if it was served pursuant to section 303,
subdivision two, three, four or five of section 308, or sections 313 , 314 or 315 ,
the appearance shall be made within thirty days after service is complete. If
the complaint is not served with the summons, the time to appear may be
extended as provided in subdivision (b) of section 3012."
Question:
James filed an action against Bob. Bob filed a bill of particulars regarding
James' complaint then filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, which was denied.
During discovery, James serves Bob with interrogatories consisting of 10
questions, each with 2 sub-questions. Should Bob respond to the
interrogatories?
A. Yes, because the interrogatories did not exceed the maximum amount
permitted
B. Yes, because the bill of particulars was not demanded from the same party
C. No, because a bill of particulars was demanded in the case
D. No, because the interrogatories exceeded the maximum amount permitted
Answer:
(D) "Except as otherwise provided herein, after commencement of an action,
any party may serve upon any other party written inter-rogatories. Except in a
matrimonial action, a party may not serve written interrogatories on another
party and also demand a bill of particulars of the same party pursuant to
section 3041 . In the case of an action to recover damages for personal injury,
