BarBri - NY Exam - July 2014 Forum

[thetashster]

MBE/NY Rule question

Does the prosecution have to show the principal committed a crime for an accomplice to be convicted?

I assumed the majority rule was that the principal must be shown to have committed the crime (but not necessarily convicted or charged).

Is this NY's rule too?

I thought that the accomplice could be charged regardless depending on what they did/if they renounced etc

My understanding was that Solicitation/Conspiracy/Attempt were the INCOMPLETE crimes that didn't need to be completed obviously, but the Accomplice Liability could only occur with an actual crime being done by the principal. The withdrawing was effective if there was a completed crime, if the crime never happened then no accomplice liability. Just my understanding of it.

right. the crime needs to be completed. but the principal doesn't need to be found guitlty.

[TLSNYC]

Does anyone know if the sample answers to the old MPTs in the MPT book are written by BarBri w/o time constraints,etc. or actual student answers? I see they have a note stating an excellent answer can be shorter and less thorough, but I'm just curious who wrote what I'm reading.

[turquoiseturtle]

Quick question: are the mixed subject questions online recycled from other BarBri questions? I went through a few in the first set, and they seemed very familiar to me.

I don't think so. I've been working through the mixed sets too, and also working in StudySmart (because I like to have the percents of each different subject/sub-topic). In StudySmart, just like how at the top, above the question, you can see the number in each of the MPQ1-6, they'll list things like MPQ2Mixed1Q10 etc... That makes me think they're unique if they're titling them.

On a side note, I seriously wish there was a much easier way to enter my results from all the Mixed Sets, like you can for the MPQ1-6s. I really like having it broken down into sub-topics, because as mentioned before, even if my overall in Torts is say 70%, I'll have shockingly different percents in the sub-topics and its a huge pain in my butt to try and keep track of that myself.

Does anyone know if the sample answers to the old MPTs in the MPT book are written by BarBri w/o time constraints,etc. or actual student answers? I see they have a note stating an excellent answer can be shorter and less thorough, but I'm just curious who wrote what I'm reading.

I don't have evidence for this, but I'm 90% sure they're Barbri model answers. However, you can find student answers to the MPT's on the NY bar website.

[TrustMeI'mAnActress]

Does anyone else find their performance on the Mixed Sets varying pretty widely between sets? I hate when I start getting confident on one set, only to be brought down by random exceptions/things I don't know in the next.

[Guchster]

Does anyone else find their performance on the Mixed Sets varying pretty widely between sets? I hate when I start getting confident on one set, only to be brought down by random exceptions/things I don't know in the next.

Mine have been about +/- 2-3 pts within the same range for Sets 1-6.

I wouldn't stress if your results are varying test by test, though. It looks like they clump question types and fact patterns by test. So you'll have like 8 requirements K questions on one set an then 5 tort fact patterns that are basically the exact same--and if you are weak in that area of law it could really affect you.

I think you should use that data to find your weak holes. Out of 6 sets, they seem to be about the same level of overall difficulty with differences in difficulty per subject area (so this might be useful in finding your gaps)

[thetashster]

Does anyone else find their performance on the Mixed Sets varying pretty widely between sets? I hate when I start getting confident on one set, only to be brought down by random exceptions/things I don't know in the next.

Mine have been about +/- 2-3 pts within the same range for Sets 1-6.

I wouldn't stress if your results are varying test by test, though. It looks like they clump question types and fact patterns by test. So you'll have like 8 requirements K questions on one set an then 5 tort fact patterns that are basically the exact same--and if you are weak in that area of law it could really affect you.

I think you should use that data to find your weak holes. Out of 6 sets, they seem to be about the same level of overall difficulty with differences in difficulty per subject area (so this might be useful in finding your gaps)

also keep in mind that they won't ask 8 requirements only questions. there's 30-33 questions overall. and so they're not gonna waste 8 of them asking about one specific thing only. they might spend 8 questions on contract formation, but not on anything more specific than that.

[Guchster]

Quick question: are the mixed subject questions online recycled from other BarBri questions? I went through a few in the first set, and they seemed very familiar to me.

I don't think so. I've been working through the mixed sets too, and also working in StudySmart (because I like to have the percents of each different subject/sub-topic). In StudySmart, just like how at the top, above the question, you can see the number in each of the MPQ1-6, they'll list things like MPQ2Mixed1Q10 etc... That makes me think they're unique if they're titling them.

On a side note, I seriously wish there was a much easier way to enter my results from all the Mixed Sets, like you can for the MPQ1-6s. I really like having it broken down into sub-topics, because as mentioned before, even if my overall in Torts is say 70%, I'll have shockingly different percents in the sub-topics and its a huge pain in my butt to try and keep track of that myself.

Does anyone know if the sample answers to the old MPTs in the MPT book are written by BarBri w/o time constraints,etc. or actual student answers? I see they have a note stating an excellent answer can be shorter and less thorough, but I'm just curious who wrote what I'm reading.

I don't have evidence for this, but I'm 90% sure they're Barbri model answers. However, you can find student answers to the MPT's on the NY bar website.

Wait, I'm confused, for studysmart how do you enter results the "easy way" for MPQs 1-6? Do you mean just re-answering the questions (if you did it by hand), or the results automatically popping up when you finished a set?

Cuz if its the latter, I completely agree. This would be super useful data.

[lawschoollll]

Is anyone else finding that they're missing some of the smaller issues in the essays? E.g. I just wrote out Essay 35, and the fourth issue was something about the Fiduciary Powers Act that wasn't (I don't think anyway) covered in the Wills lecture. Finding it pretty worrying when these pop up, which is more often than I would hope at this point. Not sure if I should just be ignoring them or adding them to my outline and learning them.

[klankenburger]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I would imagine it's totally fine to miss issues here and there. You aren't shooting for an A.

[thetashster]

Is anyone else finding that they're missing some of the smaller issues in the essays? E.g. I just wrote out Essay 35, and the fourth issue was something about the Fiduciary Powers Act that wasn't (I don't think anyway) covered in the Wills lecture. Finding it pretty worrying when these pop up, which is more often than I would hope at this point. Not sure if I should just be ignoring them or adding them to my outline and learning them.

are you comparing yourself to model answers? or to student answers/

[lawschoollll]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I would imagine it's totally fine to miss issues here and there. You aren't shooting for an A.

Yea little stuff in the model answers doesn't worry me much unless it's the entire issue - although I guess if it's just a little thing that they only give 3 sentences to in the model answer it's probably not worth many points to begin with.

[turquoiseturtle]

Quick question: are the mixed subject questions online recycled from other BarBri questions? I went through a few in the first set, and they seemed very familiar to me.

I don't think so. I've been working through the mixed sets too, and also working in StudySmart (because I like to have the percents of each different subject/sub-topic). In StudySmart, just like how at the top, above the question, you can see the number in each of the MPQ1-6, they'll list things like MPQ2Mixed1Q10 etc... That makes me think they're unique if they're titling them.

On a side note, I seriously wish there was a much easier way to enter my results from all the Mixed Sets, like you can for the MPQ1-6s. I really like having it broken down into sub-topics, because as mentioned before, even if my overall in Torts is say 70%, I'll have shockingly different percents in the sub-topics and its a huge pain in my butt to try and keep track of that myself.

Does anyone know if the sample answers to the old MPTs in the MPT book are written by BarBri w/o time constraints,etc. or actual student answers? I see they have a note stating an excellent answer can be shorter and less thorough, but I'm just curious who wrote what I'm reading.

I don't have evidence for this, but I'm 90% sure they're Barbri model answers. However, you can find student answers to the MPT's on the NY bar website.

Wait, I'm confused, for studysmart how do you enter results the "easy way" for MPQs 1-6? Do you mean just re-answering the questions (if you did it by hand), or the results automatically popping up when you finished a set?

Cuz if its the latter, I completely agree. This would be super useful data.

Sorry, I mean entering them the "easy way" like the assigned sets 1-6. I wish they would put all the questions from Mixed Sets 1-9 in groups like they have assigned sets. I was considering just quickly re-entering the answers after I've done it by hand the "easy way". It takes like two minutes, since there are only 18 questions. Versus the "hard way" of doing all 9 mixed sets and then having the questions jump around between those 9 sets and sets A/B etc.. It takes me forever to find what I originally said when I did it by hand. Because I like to read the questions and do them by hand because thats how it'll actually be. (and also I have a huge tendency to miss important facts if I can't underline).

[lawschoollll]

Is anyone else finding that they're missing some of the smaller issues in the essays? E.g. I just wrote out Essay 35, and the fourth issue was something about the Fiduciary Powers Act that wasn't (I don't think anyway) covered in the Wills lecture. Finding it pretty worrying when these pop up, which is more often than I would hope at this point. Not sure if I should just be ignoring them or adding them to my outline and learning them.

are you comparing yourself to model answers? or to student answers/

To model, but the thing I'm talking about is the entire issue - e.g. the issue statement is "what legal remedies a beneficiary under a will has when seeking to verify an executor's claim for failing to pay the beneficiary's distribution after all the estate's creditors are paid because the estate is depleted."

And uh... I don't have a clue. I could probably make some shit up and get 1/2 point or something but it just feels weird when that's one discrete issue that seems like it's out of left field.

[turquoiseturtle]

Is anyone else finding that they're missing some of the smaller issues in the essays? E.g. I just wrote out Essay 35, and the fourth issue was something about the Fiduciary Powers Act that wasn't (I don't think anyway) covered in the Wills lecture. Finding it pretty worrying when these pop up, which is more often than I would hope at this point. Not sure if I should just be ignoring them or adding them to my outline and learning them.

are you comparing yourself to model answers? or to student answers/

To model, but the thing I'm talking about is the entire issue - e.g. the issue statement is "what legal remedies a beneficiary under a will has when seeking to verify an executor's claim for failing to pay the beneficiary's distribution after all the estate's creditors are paid because the estate is depleted."

And uh... I don't have a clue. I could probably make some shit up and get 1/2 point or something but it just feels weird when that's one discrete issue that seems like it's out of left field.

I 100% missed this when I did the question too, if that makes you feel any better.

[Guchster]

Is anyone else finding that they're missing some of the smaller issues in the essays? E.g. I just wrote out Essay 35, and the fourth issue was something about the Fiduciary Powers Act that wasn't (I don't think anyway) covered in the Wills lecture. Finding it pretty worrying when these pop up, which is more often than I would hope at this point. Not sure if I should just be ignoring them or adding them to my outline and learning them.

The stuff on the FPA is in the trusts outline--fyi if you missed the Q the FPA applies to probate and intestacy actions by executors, administrators and trustees too.

I wouldn't worry much about it though. It was a sneaky issue and probably worth 5-10 points out of 100 for the essay.

[belowthelaw57]

Is anyone else finding that they're missing some of the smaller issues in the essays? E.g. I just wrote out Essay 35, and the fourth issue was something about the Fiduciary Powers Act that wasn't (I don't think anyway) covered in the Wills lecture. Finding it pretty worrying when these pop up, which is more often than I would hope at this point. Not sure if I should just be ignoring them or adding them to my outline and learning them.

are you comparing yourself to model answers? or to student answers/

To model, but the thing I'm talking about is the entire issue - e.g. the issue statement is "what legal remedies a beneficiary under a will has when seeking to verify an executor's claim for failing to pay the beneficiary's distribution after all the estate's creditors are paid because the estate is depleted."

And uh... I don't have a clue. I could probably make some shit up and get 1/2 point or something but it just feels weird when that's one discrete issue that seems like it's out of left field.

Yea there just wasn't much else to discuss. These little issues do pop up on the essays so I'm just trying to more essays at this point. I think it's good to remember that you can always demand an "accounting" of fiduciaries whatever the context is. (a corporate board member, a trustee, an executor, an agent, an administrator). Fiduciaries also always also always a duty of care and loyalty so you can always talk about that too if you see a fiduciary relationship.

[thetashster]

Is anyone else finding that they're missing some of the smaller issues in the essays? E.g. I just wrote out Essay 35, and the fourth issue was something about the Fiduciary Powers Act that wasn't (I don't think anyway) covered in the Wills lecture. Finding it pretty worrying when these pop up, which is more often than I would hope at this point. Not sure if I should just be ignoring them or adding them to my outline and learning them.

The stuff on the FPA is in the trusts outline--fyi if you missed the Q the FPA applies to probate and intestacy actions by executors, administrators and trustees too.

I wouldn't worry much about it though. It was a sneaky issue and probably worth 5-10 points out of 100 for the essay.

i don't ever recall the phrase FPA. but i guess keep in mind that people in charge of trusts and will executors... they all gotta be legit. so if you get freaked out on the exam, just think about what you would want to do in that situation. think about what you feel you'd be owed.

also, yeah an issue like that won't be worth too much. and if you missed it, rest assured you weren't the ONLY one. and you won't be the only one!

[DevilDaze]

Is assumption of the risk a complete defense in NY to strict products liability claims?

[thetashster]

Is assumption of the risk a complete defense in NY to strict products liability claims?

IIRC, assumption of risk is abolished in NY

[harmonep07]

Is assumption of the risk a complete defense in NY to strict products liability claims?

Since New York uses comparative negligence, I think that any assumption of the risk by plaintiff will reduce his recovery, but I don't know if it will ever be a complete defense, unless the use was entirely unforeseeable. Even if the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of using a defective product, if it was foreseeable that people would use the product that way, I think the manufacturer would still be on the hook.

[Guchster]

Is assumption of the risk a complete defense in NY to strict products liability claims?

I guess I don't really understand your question. New York for the most part does not allow AoR as a complete defense at all--it's considered under: (1) comparative negligence; or (2) to carve out a lesser, special duty from a general one.

So, I think even dropping it in there as a defense at all--even a partial one--would probably get you very few points, which you could recover if you had just said "comparative negligence"

[turquoiseturtle]

Is assumption of the risk a complete defense in NY to strict products liability claims?

IIRC, assumption of risk is abolished in NY

Slightly different question that I think someone else may have already asked. What's the effect of plaintiff's negligence on a strict liability claim? I know it obviously doesn't eliminate liability, since NY is pure comparative, so it wouldn't even eliminate negligence liability. But can it reduce damages in a strict liability case? What about failure to mitigate damages? (For some reason I feel like I've read somewhere that failure to mitigate can reduce a strict liability award but negligence can't... but I could be way way wrong)

[harmonep07]

Is assumption of the risk a complete defense in NY to strict products liability claims?

IIRC, assumption of risk is abolished in NY

It's not totally abolished, but it's analyzed under comparative negligence as (1) where plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk, the defendant owes a reduced duty (primary) or (2) where plaintiff proceeds unreasonably in the face of defendant's initial breach (secondary).

I only remember this from the model answer for the essay where the kid plays baseball with an older kid that he didn't know was older and sued the league.

[Guchster]

Is assumption of the risk a complete defense in NY to strict products liability claims?

IIRC, assumption of risk is abolished in NY

Slightly different question that I think someone else may have already asked. What's the effect of plaintiff's negligence on a strict liability claim? I know it obviously doesn't eliminate liability, since NY is pure comparative, so it wouldn't even eliminate negligence liability. But can it reduce damages in a strict liability case? What about failure to mitigate damages? (For some reason I feel like I've read somewhere that failure to mitigate can reduce a strict liability award but negligence can't... but I could be way way wrong)

This is a very good question that I'd like to know more about too because it is not in the CMR an wasn't fleshed out in lecture very much at all.

N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411 says comparative negligence is a permissible defense to personal injury, defense of property, or wrongful death--and does not limit it to only negligent causes of action, which implies to me that it could be used as a defense to strict liability.

I'm not sure about failure to mitigate damages and its effect on strict liability awards. I'd imagine it would reduce recovery to the extent such failure aggravated the injuries. *shrugs*

[harmonep07]

Is assumption of the risk a complete defense in NY to strict products liability claims?

IIRC, assumption of risk is abolished in NY

Slightly different question that I think someone else may have already asked. What's the effect of plaintiff's negligence on a strict liability claim? I know it obviously doesn't eliminate liability, since NY is pure comparative, so it wouldn't even eliminate negligence liability. But can it reduce damages in a strict liability case? What about failure to mitigate damages? (For some reason I feel like I've read somewhere that failure to mitigate can reduce a strict liability award but negligence can't... but I could be way way wrong)

This is a very good question that I'd like to know more about too because it is not in the CMR an wasn't fleshed out in lecture very much at all.

N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411 says comparative negligence is a permissible defense to personal injury, defense of property, or wrongful death--and does not limit it to only negligent causes of action, which implies to me that it could be used as a defense to strict liability.

I'm not sure about failure to mitigate damages and its effect on strict liability awards. I'd imagine it would reduce recovery to the extent such failure aggravated the injuries. *shrugs*

I think this is right. I mean, strict liability is just about the duty that is owed. If a strict duty is breached, but it isn't the sole legal cause of the plaintiff's injury, but the plaintiff himself is also to blame, then I don't see why it wouldn't apply. It seems like failure to mitigate damages would apply for the same reason.