It’s
been almost two years since I shared my experience with “how to get rid of
stuff.” Now a fast-food lunch break
affords a chance for part “too” (two.)
Not a comprehensive guide this time, but a simple reminder to “save
the earth” and my back next time our things have to be moved. (Yes, while lightening my load, I still “recycle
paper on a daily basis.”)
During
pre-spring cleaning this year, we have donated many great books to thrift, but
I was sure there were more to go … in the spirit of sharing, of course. In the dark basement the other night, I
grabbed a heavy book as part of my ongoing effort. This one turned out to be a puzzle – can’t
remember why I spent 99 cents a decade ago at a clearance store on 12th Street. Was it because the West Group publisher
prints 100% of their legal bound volumes “on acid-free, recycled paper
consisting of 50% new fibers [and] recycles nearly 27,700,000 pounds of scrap
paper annually – the equivalent of 229,300 trees”? Or did I foresee that something would
intrigue me about the legalese inside West’s
New York Supplement, Volume 668 N.Y.S.2d, a 3.6-lb hardcover book of “Cases
Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals / Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court / as well as the Supreme Court and Other Courts” © 1999.
“Simple
definition: the language used by lawyers that is difficult for most people to
understand : legal jargon … Full definition:
the specialized language of the legal profession.” (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legalese)
For
example, I share one case on page 380 I just flipped to before recycling:
“MEMORANDUM DECISION. Order, Supreme Court, New York County
(Stephen Crane, J.), entered November 12, 1996, which granted defendants’
motion for summary judgement dismissing the complaint as barred by the Statute
of Limitations, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion
denied, and the complaint reinstated."
"This is a product liability action for
repetitive stress injury ('RSI') allegedly suffered in the workplace by
computer keyboard users. Summary
judgement was granted on the basis of a 1996 ruling of the Court (Blanco v.
American Tel. & Tel. Co., … ) which
held that a cause of action in this type of case accrues upon the first use of
an allegedly defective keyboard, despite the virtual certainty that an
individual will not become aware of such an injury until after expiration of
the 3-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214).”
Clearly, that makes sense.
This
could go on, but I suffer from my own RSI (now called “repetitive strain injury”) after
typing that much on a PC keyboard instead of using speech recognition software
(Dragon, anyone?) they likely did not have in 1996. What was I thinking?! I will donate this book to my attorney
friend, a collector of great books, in trade for legal advice. As previously stated, “I think this writing
is ready, and I am about to lighten my load.”
This one's a goner!
Keepers, as long as I have a say.
