New York Law Watch
Civil Procedure: 2026 decisions
The civil procedure collection gathers decisions on pleadings, service, disclosure, motion practice and appellate procedure, including secondary classifications from substantive disputes.
Prison administration and release decisions are filed here, including review of disciplinary determinations, parole proceedings and claims concerning confinement.
For Civil Procedure, 2026 decisions, Law Watch lists 220 indexable decisions dated January 15, 2026 to November 12, 2026 across 15 decision weeks.
274 decision records: 220 meet the substance floor; 54 records are held from search listings.
Week ending November 14, 2026
Browse the week ending November 14, 2026
- Shahid v New York Columbia-Presbyt. Hosp. Irving Med. Ctr.2026 NY Slip Op 06586
The dismissal of the medical malpractice complaint was affirmed because the plaintiff was not an authorized representative of the decedent’s estate and lacked the capacity to sue pro se. The court determined that only a personal representative with letters of administration could maintain the wrongful death and personal injury claims.
- Lee v Zeitlin2026 NY Slip Op 51894(U)
The court granted defendants’ motion for letters rogatory to obtain trading records from the London Stock Exchange, finding the evidence crucial to the litigation and unavailable through domestic means. The court determined that the request was narrowly tailored and satisfied the stringent requirements for international discovery.
- Tacora Nantucket Fin. LLC v Nantucket Capital Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06565
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, granting an anti-suit injunction to stop defendants from prosecuting a California lawsuit. The court found that defendants acted in bad faith by concealing the California filing while engaging in settlement discussions and explicitly aiming to invalidate New York forum selection clauses.
- Stone Sec. Serv. & Investigations Inc. v Panoramic Sec. & Consulting Servs., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06563
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order holding defendants in civil contempt for violating a preliminary injunction that prohibited communication with a specific client. The court found that the defendants knowingly violated the injunction, and that willfulness is not a required element for civil contempt.
- Jesus M. Zeno, P.C. v Grullon2026 NY Slip Op 06552
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment, finding that her bare denial of service was insufficient and that she waived the defense by filing a notice of appearance. The court modified the turnover order to exclude pension monies held in trust and real property located in the Dominican Republic, as these are exempt from turnover under CPLR 5225.
Week ending November 7, 2026
Browse the week ending November 7, 2026
- Matter of Mack v Martuscello2026 NY Slip Op 06508
The court confirmed the disciplinary determination finding the petitioner guilty of making false statements and obstructing visibility, as substantial evidence supported the guilt. The court held that Correction Law § 138 (7) does not shield an incarcerated individual from being charged in a misbehavior report for intentionally filing a false misconduct report.
- Matter of Devaughn v Malark2026 NY Slip Op 06506
The court confirmed the disciplinary determination finding the petitioner guilty of smuggling and possessing a weapon, as supported by substantial evidence. The court also rejected the petitioner’s claim that his hearing representative was improperly removed, noting his disruptive conduct justified the decision.
- Doe v Roe2026 NY Slip Op 06502
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the defendant retained her Washington domicile while attending college in New York, thus precluding general jurisdiction. Additionally, the court found that the defendant’s academic activities did not constitute the continuous commercial presence required for general jurisdiction, and the defamation claim was excluded from specific jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.
- Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Appellant, v Marie Leis et al., Defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06498
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a dismissal for abandonment, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its prolonged delay. The court held that the plaintiff’s lack of factual allegations regarding the cause of the default and the subsequent six-year inactivity precluded relief under CPLR 5015(a)(1).
- Brigham v Arnold2026 NY Slip Op 06520
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s defamation claims as time-barred and dismissed the architectural malpractice and fraud claims due to a lack of privity and justifiable reliance. The court determined that the plaintiff’s prior adversarial litigation against the defendants negated any reasonable reliance on their representations.
- Anil v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06519
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order compelling the deposition of a defendant named in his official capacity, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the deposition was material and necessary to her claims. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s cross-appeal for lack of aggrievement because the order below was decided in her favor.
- Ahmed v Choudhry2026 NY Slip Op 06518
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred and that equitable estoppel did not apply due to a lack of due diligence. The court further held that several causes of action, including civil embezzlement and attorneys’ fees, were not recognized as independent claims in New York.
- Perez v Levister Redevelopment Co., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06473
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of dismissal, holding that a plaintiff who filed suit as a proposed administratrix before receiving letters of administration lacked capacity to bring wrongful death and survival claims. Because the plaintiff failed to seek substitution within a reasonable time and made no allegations supporting individual capacity claims, dismissal was proper.
- LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Blake2026 NY Slip Op 06425
The defendant waived her defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to comply with CPLR 306-b by participating in the litigation on the merits without raising those objections. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied her motions to vacate the dismissal order and to vacate her default judgment.
- Estate of Tadeusz W. Czajkowski, et al., v. City of New York, et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06418
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew their opposition to the dismissal of the complaint. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to present any new facts or evidence that would have altered the prior determination regarding the dismissal.
- Citibank, N.A. v Grunberger2026 NY Slip Op 06413
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint in the interest of justice. The court determined that the extension was appropriate because the statute of limitations had expired, the delay was not particularly egregious, and there was no identifiable prejudice to the defendant.
- Citadel Med. Mgt., Inc. v Statcare Urgent & Walk In Med., PLLC2026 NY Slip Op 06412
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order vacating a dismissal for failure to appear at a compliance conference because the plaintiff failed to provide a detailed and credible explanation for the default. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims of a medical condition and a calendaring error were unsupported by evidence or sufficient detail to constitute a reasonable excuse.
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Portz2026 NY Slip Op 06408
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily discontinue the foreclosure action without prejudice. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to leave to discontinue absent a showing of special circumstances or substantial prejudice to the defendant.
- ARCPE 1, LLC v Canales2026 NY Slip Op 06405
The court reversed the lower court’s order, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. The plaintiff failed to establish good cause for an extension of time to serve or that alternative service was warranted under CPLR 308(5).
- Kaplan v Circle Internet Group Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 26202
The court granted Circle’s motion to dismiss, holding that Circle owed no duty of care to the plaintiff absent a prior relationship or court order, and that its inaction did not constitute aiding and abetting. The court denied Uneven Labs’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, finding that the plaintiff made a sufficient start to establish personal jurisdiction to warrant discovery.
Week ending October 31, 2026
Browse the week ending October 31, 2026
- Ann Arbor Group LLC v Gherardi2026 NY Slip Op 06399
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s CPLR 3213 motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint because the service of the notice of motion was defective, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Additionally, the court found that even if jurisdiction existed, the plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment due to unresolved questions of fact regarding the assignment of the note and guaranty.
- Whitaker v 1975-1983 Jerome Ave. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06398
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment because the motion was untimely and lacked a meritorious defense. The court also declined to review a service argument raised for the first time on appeal.
- Schuster v Deckoff2026 NY Slip Op 06395
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s personal injury action for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish proper substituted service. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for an extension of time to serve the pleadings due to a lack of reasonably diligent efforts.
- Deutsche Oel & Gas S.A. v Energy Capital Partners Mezzanine Opportunities Fund A, LP2026 NY Slip Op 51826[U]
The court granted the motion to compel discovery in part, finding that while both parties had a relevant basis for their demands, certain requests were overly broad and vague. The parties were directed to supplement their demands by limiting the scope of the improper requests or face vacatur, while being ordered to fully respond to the remaining proper demands.
- Wynter v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06351
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a dismissal order because the plaintiff failed to submit admissible evidence supporting the claim that counsel appeared at the scheduled inquest. The court held that a party alleging appearance by counsel must provide evidence in admissible form to support that assertion.
- Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Saunders2026 NY Slip Op 06350
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment and foreclosure judgment because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default. The court found that the attorney’s disbarment did not constitute a reasonable excuse, particularly given the lack of timely inquiry by the defendant and the timing of the disbarment relative to the default.
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Boyd2026 NY Slip Op 06347
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment, holding that the defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by actively litigating the action without first asserting an objection. Additionally, the prior order denying the motion to dismiss was the law of the case regarding the jurisdictional arguments.
- U.S. Bank National Association, etc., appellant, v Sandra Simpson, etc., respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06345
The court held that the January 2018 order was a nullity because it was issued after the borrower’s death and before the substitution of a legal representative. Consequently, the December 2022 order was also properly vacated because the action remained dismissed.
- Sherpa v SRF Partnership, L.P.2026 NY Slip Op 06340
The court affirmed the lower court’s order vacating a default judgment under CPLR 317 because the defendant demonstrated it did not receive actual notice of the action due to an incorrect address on file with the Secretary of State. The defendant also established a potentially meritorious defense by showing the property was leased to another entity at the time of the incident.
- Schirmer v Piazza2026 NY Slip Op 06338
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the money judgment because the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing the motion. The attorney’s unsubstantiated claim that court emails were in the wrong folder was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse under CPLR 5015(a).
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v PLB Enters. USA, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06311
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order vacating a dismissal, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default in appearing at a conference. The court found the plaintiff’s claim of law office failure unsubstantiated because the supporting attorney affirmation lacked personal knowledge of the error.
- Matter of Congregation Radin Dev., Inc. v Town of Ramapo2026 NY Slip Op 06300
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order precluding the petitioner from introducing certain evidence because it failed to comply with discovery demands. The court found that the petitioner’s repeated failure to produce required documents without a reasonable excuse supported an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.
- Midfirst Bank v McKenzie2026 NY Slip Op 06296
The court affirmed the lower court’s order severing the third-party actions from the main foreclosure action, finding that the trial court providently exercised its discretion to promote the prompt resolution of an eighteen-year-old case. Additionally, the court dismissed the purported appeal by the deceased defendant because the filing attorney lacked the authority to act on his behalf.
- Midfirst Bank v McKenzie2026 NY Slip Op 06295
The court dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of a deceased defendant due to lack of authority and dismissed the appeal regarding the denial of reargument as non-appealable. The court modified the lower court’s order to vacate a subsequent order as a nullity arising from the automatic stay upon the defendant’s death.
- Ljusic v Petit2026 NY Slip Op 06290
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting leave to amend the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to add a property damage claim was barred by significant prejudice and unreasonable delay. The court determined that the amendment constituted a significant expansion of claims sought after discovery was completed and without supporting documentation.
- Leader v 85 Quay St., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06289
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s refusal to dismiss the complaint for failure to provide discovery, finding that the defendant did not demonstrate the plaintiff’s conduct was willful and contumacious. The court held that the prior order was not a self-executing conditional order of dismissal and that the drastic remedy of striking a pleading was unwarranted given the plaintiff’s eventual compliance and explanations.
- Innes v Ignis Dev., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06287
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order vacating a default judgment under CPLR 317 because the defendant demonstrated it did not receive actual notice of the action due to an incorrect address on file with the Secretary of State. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant’s failure to update its address constituted a deliberate attempt to avoid service, noting the plaintiff knew the defendant’s actual business address.
- Gharti v 33 Plaza, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06284
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer for spoliation of evidence. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant intentionally or negligently destroyed key evidence, such as insurance reports or surveillance footage, or that the loss of such evidence deprived the plaintiff of the ability to prove his claim.
- Eguzouwa v Curb Mobility, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06282
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the defendants violated the single motion rule of CPLR 3211(e). The defendants were barred from filing a subsequent motion to dismiss the amended complaint using the same arguments as their prior motion.
- DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v Rubel2026 NY Slip Op 06281
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew its opposition to a dismissal. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a change in the law, which is required for such a motion.
- Cuautle-Rosas v Caprio2026 NY Slip Op 06280
The court reversed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions of nonparties and to dismiss the comparative negligence defense, finding the defendant’s liability conceded and the discovery request relevant. However, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to strike the answer and to amend the complaint for punitive damages, as the plaintiff failed to show willful misconduct or sufficient moral culpability.
- Citibank, NA v Moskovits2026 NY Slip Op 06279
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of leave to enter a default judgment and denial of the defendant’s cross-motion for a late answer because the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default. The court further held that the defendant waived any claim regarding personal jurisdiction by appearing in the action without moving to dismiss on that ground.
- Anderson v Pfanner2026 NY Slip Op 06274
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, finding the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of domicile and that the declaratory relief did not necessarily require dissolution of foreign LLCs. However, the court reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the required elements of likelihood of success, irreparable injury, and balancing of equities.
- 21st Mortgage Corporation v. Hindy Rosenfeld2026 NY Slip Op 06273
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to require a hearing on the validity of service of process, as the defendant’s sworn denial sufficiently rebutted the presumption of service. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve unknown heirs because the statutory period under CPLR 205-a had expired.
- Castle Apparel Limited v Claudio Del Vecchio2026 NY Slip Op 51817[U]
The court denied the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiffs to produce a nonparty consultant as a party witness, finding that the plaintiffs did not have the necessary control over the individual. The court determined that the defendants must seek discovery from the nonparty through subpoena or an open commission rather than compelling the opposing party to produce the witness.
- Ferguson v New Savoy Park II2026 NY Slip Op 06243
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision to vacate a default judgment based on a reasonable excuse of law office failure and the submission of potentially meritorious defenses. Consequently, the court properly denied the plaintiff’s subsequent motion for entry of a money judgment.
- Vega v Archdiocese of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06270
The appeal was dismissed because the record lacked admissible evidence to support the appellant’s claims of attorney-client and work-product privileges. The court held that unsworn representations in appellate briefs are insufficient to establish the existence of these privileges for meaningful appellate review.
- Turner v Pride & Servs. El. Co. Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06269
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against CEMD as time-barred because service on a different entity was insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Additionally, the court affirmed summary judgment for Kone, noting that the purchase agreement excluded personal injury liability and that the plaintiff’s successor liability argument was not properly raised.
- Sigler v Baldan2026 NY Slip Op 06268
The court affirmed the dismissal of fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment claims but reversed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim, holding that the plaintiff’s security interest in the co-op shares survived the Florida sheriff’s sale and judgment. The court also remanded the motion to disqualify defense counsel for further proceedings.
- Laltitude LLC v Zhejiang Jiajiao Holdings Group Co., Ltd.2026 NY Slip Op 06249
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the defendant’s attendance at a trade fair did not constitute purposeful activity or a substantial relationship to the breach of contract claim. The court determined that contacts occurring after the alleged breach cannot establish the defendant’s relationship with New York for jurisdictional purposes.
- Dupree v NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia Univ. Irving Med. Ctr.2026 NY Slip Op 06242
The court modified the lower court’s order to reinstate the plaintiff’s negligence and negligent hiring claims, finding that dismissal was too drastic a sanction for counsel’s failure to appear personally. The dismissal of the medical malpractice claim was affirmed because the plaintiff failed to submit necessary expert medical opinion evidence.
- Abuzaid v Almayouf2026 NY Slip Op 06238
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s orders imposing discovery sanctions, including striking the defendant’s answer and awarding attorneys’ fees, due to her chronic noncompliance with discovery obligations. The court held that the defendant’s pro se status did not excuse her failure to comply with court orders or her obstruction of the discovery process.
Week ending October 24, 2026
Browse the week ending October 24, 2026
- Wilson Tang, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v Vincent Tang, Defendant-Appellant2026 NY Slip Op 06230
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s finding of civil contempt, determining that the defendant failed to comply with a court order to add the plaintiff as an authorized representative on bank accounts and violated a settlement agreement by disparaging the plaintiff on social media.
- PF2 Sec. Evaluations, Inc. v Fillebeen2026 NY Slip Op 06224
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of discovery sanctions, finding that the issues had already been resolved by a Special Referee and that the defendants’ conduct did not warrant sanctions. The court also rejected the argument for dismissal of counterclaims as a spoliation sanction due to insufficient evidence of destruction.
- Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hartsfield2026 NY Slip Op 06199
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action because the plaintiff failed to take proceedings for entry of judgment within one year after the defendant’s default, as required by CPLR 3215(c). The plaintiff was judicially estopped from arguing the defendant did not need to answer the amended complaint, and the defendant did not waive her right to seek dismissal by participating in the litigation.
- Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v Linen2026 NY Slip Op 51759[U]
The appeal is dismissed as nonappealable because the order granting class certification was entered on default after the plaintiff failed to file opposition papers. The court held that the proper remedy was to move to vacate the default, not to seek reargument or appeal the underlying order directly.
- U.S. Bank National Association, etc., respondent, v William L. Vetri, etc., appellant, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06162
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s cross-motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that newly discovered evidence would have produced a different result. Additionally, the defendant failed to establish a potentially meritorious defense or any fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the plaintiff to support relief under CPLR 5015(a)(3).
- U.S. Bank National Association, etc., appellant, v Leon Pursoo, respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06161
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or an interest of justice for extending the time to serve the defendant. The plaintiff’s failure to serve within the statutory 120-day period, coupled with a lack of evidence showing reasonable diligence or actual notice, warranted the vacatur of the prior order and dismissal of the complaint.
- O’Hanlon v Renwick2026 NY Slip Op 06128
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order, holding that the law of the case doctrine barred the defendant from conducting discovery on a statute of frauds defense that had already been determined in a prior appeal. Consequently, the defendant’s application for discovery was denied and the plaintiff’s application to preclude it was granted.
- Matter of Itria Ventures, LLC v RVS Constr. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06117
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross-motion to vacate an order directing the turnover of funds because the appellant failed to establish that the proffered evidence was undiscoverable through due diligence. Additionally, the appellant failed to demonstrate that the purportedly newly discovered evidence probably would have produced a different result.
- Mizrahi v Saraya2026 NY Slip Op 06110
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order, granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment and denying the defendants’ cross-motion to compel acceptance of a late answer. The court found that the defendants failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their default, as their claim of law office failure was conclusory and unsubstantiated.
- McLeod v Atlantis Operating, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06109
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to grant the defendants’ motion to amend their answer to deny specific allegations of negligence, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice. However, the court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to remove their admission of operating the nursing facility due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and lack of a reasonable excuse for delay.
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Min Young You2026 NY Slip Op 06102
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting the defendants’ motion to renew and dismissing the foreclosure complaint as time-barred. The court held that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) retroactively amended CPLR 3217(e) to prevent the voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action from resetting the statute of limitations.
- Federal National Mortgage Association v Fishbein2026 NY Slip Op 06100
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred, holding that the voluntary discontinuance of a prior action did not reset the statute of limitations under the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act. The court determined that the plaintiff could not unilaterally revive the accrual of the cause of action after the initial acceleration of the mortgage debt.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas, etc., respondent, v Favio Taveras, etc., et al., defendants, Freddy Duran, appellant.2026 NY Slip Op 06096
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for leave to renew because the defendant improperly asserted a new legal argument rather than relying on new facts or a change in law. Additionally, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a complaint, to prove that a prior action to foreclose the same mortgage was pending.
- De Almeida v Scavone2026 NY Slip Op 06095
The Appellate Division affirmed the order compelling the defendants to provide discovery but modified it by deleting the provision that conditionally struck their answer. The court found that while the lower court properly exercised discretion in compelling discovery, it did not providently exercise discretion in imposing the sanction of striking the answer.
- Connors v Kushner Cos., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06093
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint because a motion to renew is the appropriate vehicle for seeking relief based on a change in the law. Additionally, the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit.
- East Harlem MEC Parcel C, L.P. v Smalls2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U]
The Civil Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the landlord’s motion to renew its opposition because the landlord failed to justify the delay and the new evidence would not change the prior determination. The court found that an unsworn letter from the Department of Buildings did not constitute a formal agency opinion or definitive final agency determination entitled to deference.
- United States Fire Insurance Company et al. v Michael Palin et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06080
The appeal was dismissed as taken from a nonappealable paper because an order declining to sign an order to show cause is an ex parte order that does not decide a motion made on notice. The court also declined to grant leave to appeal in the interest of justice, finding that the plaintiffs’ expenditure of resources to perfect the appeal did not constitute a unique circumstance warranting such relief.
- IKB International S.A. in Liquidation et al. v Morgan Stanley et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06064
The court affirmed the exclusion of evidence regarding collateral characteristics and securitizations not specifically alleged in the complaint, finding that such evidence would prejudice the defendants. Additionally, the court dismissed the appeal from the consent order because the plaintiffs were not aggrieved by the dismissal of their own complaint.
- Cura Found. v Shaya2026 NY Slip Op 06061
The court held that the promissory note was an instrument for the payment of money only under CPLR 3213, permitting summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The defendant’s defenses of fraud and breach of the underlying pledge agreement were insufficient to defeat the motion because the note contained an unconditional payment clause and the alleged fraud was legally insufficient.
Week ending October 17, 2026
Browse the week ending October 17, 2026
- Obah v Google Roblox & Roblox2026 NY Slip Op 51713[U]
The court reversed the dismissal of the complaint, reinstating the matter for a traverse hearing because the defendant’s sworn, nonconclusory denial of service raised a factual issue. Additionally, the court held that an endorsed complaint failing to adequately apprise the defendant of the action’s nature should not be dismissed outright, but rather the plaintiff should be directed to file a formal pleading.
- Sarante v Courtlandt Dev. LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06034
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion to compel a further deposition of the plaintiff after the note of issue was filed. The court found that defendants failed to demonstrate unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting post-note of issue discovery based on unproven allegations in unrelated actions.
- RBL Bank Limited v Veria Lifestyle Inc., et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06033
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the foreign bank’s sporadic dealings did not constitute doing business in New York, thus exempting it from registration requirements. Additionally, the defendants waived the Banking Law defense by failing to plead it initially and by not appealing the denial of their motion to amend.
- Hall v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.2026 NY Slip Op 06003
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s protective order limiting the third-party observer at the plaintiff’s neuropsychological examination to a licensed clinical psychologist. The court found that the presence of the plaintiff’s attorney would prevent the expert from conducting a meaningful examination.
- Gonzalez v Country Manor Apts.2026 NY Slip Op 06002
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s amended complaint because the statute of limitations had expired before the actual property owners were joined as parties. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve process due to a lack of reasonably diligent efforts to identify the correct defendants.
- Dalessandro v Dalessandro2026 NY Slip Op 06000
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion for leave to serve a late answer, finding that the delay was short, caused by reasonable law office failure, and did not prejudice the plaintiff. The court emphasized the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits.
- Wardi v Alexim Holdings, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05995
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(4) because a separate action between the same parties for the same cause of action was already pending. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ action was not considered pending for this purpose because their complaint was not filed and served until after the defendant’s complaint in the separate action.
- Vashovsky v Zablocki2026 NY Slip Op 05994
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the motion to vacate the receiver’s commission, finding that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in awarding a commission of $425,000. The court determined that the awarded amount was less than the statutory maximum of five percent and was reasonable based on the specific circumstances of the case.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Fulford2026 NY Slip Op 05989
The appeal from the foreclosure judgment was dismissed because no appeal lies from a judgment granted upon the default of the appealing party. The motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied because the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default, which is required to vacate a default based on intrinsic fraud.
- Tymoshenko v Levitansky2026 NY Slip Op 05988
The court reversed the lower court’s order, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint because it contained no factual allegations against her. The court also denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint because the relation-back doctrine was inapplicable and the new claims were time-barred.
- Pennymac Corp. v New York City Envtl. Control Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 05965
The court affirmed the denial of a nonparty’s motion to intervene and vacate a foreclosure judgment as untimely. The nonparty was deemed to have constructive notice of the action via a filed notice of pendency and failed to justify a 14-year delay in seeking relief.
- Matter of Telesford v Hartofilis2026 NY Slip Op 05960
The court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. The court held that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is limited to compelling the performance of a ministerial act.
- Malone v Spaliviero2026 NY Slip Op 05948
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the defendant’s statute of limitations defense. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the defense was without merit and improperly introduced new evidence in their reply affirmation.
- Majid v Manna2026 NY Slip Op 05947
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment because the plaintiff’s affidavit of service established a prima facie case of proper service that the defendant failed to rebut. Additionally, the defendant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her default in answering the complaint.
- Majid v Manna2026 NY Slip Op 05946
The court affirmed the extension of time to serve the defendant under CPLR 306-b, finding no prejudice despite defective initial service. However, the court modified the lower court’s order to deny the plaintiff’s request for alternative service under CPLR 308(5) due to a lack of evidence that ordinary service was impracticable.
- Kelly v Magarie2026 NY Slip Op 05945
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the process server exercised due diligence before resorting to affix and mail service. The process server’s testimony regarding inquiries into the defendant’s employment was deemed insufficient to satisfy the legal requirements for valid service under CPLR 308(4).
- Keil v Willow Wood Assoc. LP2026 NY Slip Op 05944
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar because she failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default in appearing at compliance conferences. The plaintiff’s allegation that incoming counsel filed the matter under an incorrect index number was deemed conclusory and unsubstantiated, particularly given that counsel had previously appeared for a conference.
- Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Roberts2026 NY Slip Op 05939
The appeal is dismissed because the nonparty-appellant is not aggrieved by the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. The appellant lacked standing as he neither moved for relief nor was relief granted against him, and the judgment did not directly affect him.
- GCM Funding, LLC v Pulse Nail Spa in Buford, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05938
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for making a successive motion. The court found that the plaintiff did not show why the evidence was not available during the first motion and that the motion did not fit within the narrow exception to the successive summary judgment rule.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Roy Hall2026 NY Slip Op 05932
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the plaintiff an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint under CPLR 306-b, finding that the extension was justified in the interest of justice. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument for dismissal based on failure to comply with RPAPL 1303, as the statute does not apply to non-owner-occupied properties.
- Christiana Trust v Victor2026 NY Slip Op 05930
The court held that a defendant who serves an untimely answer waives the right to seek dismissal of the complaint as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c). Furthermore, because the defendant never vacated his default, he was precluded from raising affirmative defenses such as lack of standing and statute of limitations.
- Board of Mgrs. of Oceanview Condominium v Riccardi2026 NY Slip Op 05927
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and its grant of the plaintiff’s cross-motion for civil contempt. The court held that the law of the case doctrine barred the defendant from re-examining issues that were already determined on a prior appeal.
- Promise Homes Co. LLC v Promise Homes Inv., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51706[U]
The court denied the defendant’s motion to stay the breach of contract action because the pending California lawsuit involved different legal entities and separate promissory notes, meaning the proceedings did not share common questions of law or fact. The court further determined that a stay would inordinately delay justice given that no discovery had occurred over a year after the complaint was filed.
- Castleman v Interactive Brokers LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05904
The in pari delicto doctrine bars a federal equity receiver from suing a third party for negligence or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty because the receiver stands in the shoes of the wrongdoing corporation. The adverse interest exception does not apply because the wrongdoer was the sole owner of the entity at the time of the misconduct.
Week ending October 10, 2026
Browse the week ending October 10, 2026
- LW Holdco V LLC v Kelly Puls, MARK HANEY, CHRIS LYSTER2026 NY Slip Op 51688[U]
The court granted the motion to seal specific exhibits containing sensitive proprietary information, such as loan agreements and business emails, finding that good cause existed to protect the plaintiff’s competitive edge. However, the court denied the request to seal the pleadings and affidavits, determining that no legitimate basis was shown to restrict public access to those core judicial documents.
- Matter of Farley2026 NY Slip Op 05890
The appeal is dismissed because no appeal lies as of right from an order entered sua sponte that did not decide a motion made upon notice. The court declined to treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal.
- Edworthy v Village of Whitesboro2026 NY Slip Op 05870
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the individual defendant because the plaintiff improperly raised a public nuisance theory for the first time in opposition to a summary judgment motion. The court held that a bill of particulars cannot be used to allege a new theory of liability that was not originally asserted in the complaint.
- Matter of Crawford v Martuscello2026 NY Slip Op 05838
The Appellate Division confirmed the disciplinary determination finding the petitioner guilty of possessing contraband and smuggling, as the record contained substantial evidence to support the finding. The court held that the Hearing Officer properly resolved credibility issues regarding the petitioner’s testimony concerning the possession and description of the items.
- Mandart v Small Bone Innovations, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05857
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to extend the note of issue deadline, finding that the lower court improvidently exercised its discretion. The court determined that the plaintiff established good cause for the extension due to delays in discovery that were not willful but resulted from legitimate difficulties and the defendant’s own actions.
- Kapitus Servicing, Inc. v Southern Source, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05855
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate a default judgment, finding that defendants had actual notice of the action despite potential notary defects. Additionally, the court held that defendants failed to establish a usury defense because they did not prove the underlying agreement was a loan with a finite term.
- Matter of Alston v Martuscello2026 NY Slip Op 05834
The court confirmed the disciplinary determination finding the petitioner guilty of smuggling and possessing contraband, as the evidence provided substantial support for the guilt finding. The court held that minor inconsistencies in documentation and the petitioner’s speculative claims regarding tampered property were credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve.
- Matter of New York State Police v Brian LL.2026 NY Slip Op 05832
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of an extreme risk protection order, holding that the petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was likely to engage in conduct resulting in serious harm. The court found the evidence of an implied threat to be equivocal and contradictory, particularly given the respondent’s explanation that his statements referred to future litigation rather than violence.
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Sharf2026 NY Slip Op 05825
The court held that a sua sponte order directing a plaintiff to file an affirmation or face dismissal is not a self-executing conditional order that automatically dismisses the action. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to vacate the order and restore the action to the active calendar without demonstrating a reasonable excuse or meritorious claim.
- Maranov v Werney2026 NY Slip Op 05778
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order, which had denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the defendants’ motion based on technical non-compliance with word count limits. The court held that the Supreme Court should have overlooked these technical defects and remitted the matter for a new determination on the merits.
- Erkman Intl., Co., Ltd. v PepsiCo, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05768
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting fraud against PepsiCo. The court found that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that PepsiCo provided substantial assistance, as mere inaction does not constitute substantial assistance without a direct fiduciary duty.
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Fales2026 NY Slip Op 05767
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment within one year of the defendant’s default. Consequently, the court granted the defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c).
- Citibank, N.A. v Sagastume2026 NY Slip Op 05765
The court vacated the foreclosure judgment and dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in service of process. The process server did not make genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts before resorting to affix and mail service.
- Champion v Merlex Auto Group2026 NY Slip Op 05763
The court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the defendant waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in extensive litigation activities and delaying its request for arbitration for approximately 18 months. The court determined that the defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, thereby precluding the use of the courtroom as a convenient vestibule to the arbitration hall.
- An v Long Is. Bd. of Realtors2026 NY Slip Op 05758
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of dismissal for the negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims, finding that the plaintiffs’ allegations were based solely on contractual relationships or failed to establish necessary elements like justifiable reliance or consumer-oriented conduct. The court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud, conspiracy, and injurious falsehood claims, noting that the plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on the defendants’ representations and the injurious falsehood claim was time-barred.
- Webb v Infusion Capital Group LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51679[U]
The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff, as an assignee of a foreign LLC’s claims, had standing to proceed pro se. The court held that a valid assignment of claims to a natural person is a permissible tactic to avoid the statutory prohibition against corporations appearing without counsel.
- Wong v Wong2026 NY Slip Op 05753
The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly allowed evidence and argument regarding a prior owner’s status, which contradicted the law of the case. The court found that the late curative instructions were ineffective and that the improper evidence likely played a substantial role in the jury’s decision.
- Rifkin v Lubcher2026 NY Slip Op 05749
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to compel the production of specific billing worksheets, invoices, deposit slips, and a client list relevant to an accounting action. The court affirmed the denial of requests for documents not previously requested or deemed irrelevant to the accounting dispute.
- Jose v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05727
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel a deposition because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the insufficiency of existing testimony or the necessity of the requested witness. Additionally, the court correctly quashed subpoenas for nonparties because the plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of their testimony, rendering the subpoenas tantamount to a fishing expedition.
- Hanover v Speaker2026 NY Slip Op 05724
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision to issue conditional orders precluding evidence rather than striking the defendants’ answer. The court found that the defendants’ delays in producing insurance documents were not willful or contumacious, making the drastic remedy of striking the answer unwarranted.
- Brice v Two Sigma Inv. Solutions, LP2026 NY Slip Op 05717
The appeal is dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order because the plaintiff did not oppose the motion to compel arbitration. Consequently, the plaintiff is not aggrieved by the Supreme Court’s granting of the motion and lacks standing to appeal.
- Arnstein v Stein Saks, PLLC2026 NY Slip Op 05714
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s issuance of a prefiling injunction enjoining the plaintiff from commencing new litigation without judicial permission. The court held that the trial court providently exercised its discretion and that the injunction is distinct from 22 NYCRR 130-1 sanctions, thus not requiring the specific written decision format mandated for frivolous conduct findings.
- 5 Beekman Property Owner, LLC et al. v Henick-Lane, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05712
The court affirmed the order requiring plaintiffs to return a settlement payment made by the defendant’s insurer based on a mistaken belief that a settlement had been reached. The court held that the voluntary payment doctrine did not apply because the insurer reserved rights and the payment was based on a mistake of material fact.
- Casita, L.P. v Maplewood Equity Partners (Offshore) Ltd.2026 NY Slip Op 51676[U]
The court ordered defendants to produce responsive documents to plaintiff’s 49 demands, rejecting the argument that discovery should be limited at this early stage. The court held that defendants cannot unilaterally limit the scope of permissible discovery before a final determination on the merits.
Week ending October 3, 2026
Browse the week ending October 3, 2026
- Stang v Shenoy2026 NY Slip Op 05638
The court vacated the lower court’s order prohibiting questions regarding a specific medical report and the defendant’s health condition relative to it, finding that such limitations abused discretion by potentially precluding relevant testimony. The court determined that the report was not protected by statutory privilege because it had been disclosed to the public in a separate action.
- Estrada v Tower 31 LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51567[U]
The court affirmed the permission to discontinue the proceeding without prejudice but modified the final judgment to limit the award of attorneys’ fees to those incurred in connection with the motion to discontinue. The court found that ordering payment of fees from the inception of the proceeding was improvident because respondents caused much of the delay in the matter.
- Osman v Pelofi2026 NY Slip Op 05602
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the husband’s motion for discovery and forensic examination, finding that he failed to establish a triable issue of fact regarding the wife’s access to his emails. The court also rejected his due process and spoliation claims, noting that he was afforded a full opportunity to litigate and that the wife voluntarily produced her device for examination.
- M.J., etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v City of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellants.2026 NY Slip Op 05600
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as untimely because they failed to demonstrate good cause for a 62-day delay in filing the renewed motion after the court-ordered electronic conversion. The court held that the initial timely motion did not excuse the subsequent delay, as it had been denied without prejudice, leaving no pending motion.
- Dougal v Kindlon2026 NY Slip Op 05579
The appeal is dismissed because no appealable paper exists, as the City Court’s oral decision was never reduced to a judgment or final order. The subsequent order denying a motion to compel judgment does not constitute a final judgment subject to appeal.
- Delgado v 27-51 Jackson Ave LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05593
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of a motion to amend pleadings to add fraud claims, finding the proposed amendment lacked merit. The court determined that the existence of other unproven fraud lawsuits and shared addresses with other claimants were insufficient to establish a misrepresentation of fact with the required particularity.
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Bryant2026 NY Slip Op 05570
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s determination that the defendant rebutted the presumption of proper service, finding her affidavit insufficient to contradict the process server’s specific allegations. Consequently, the court denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment and foreclosure order, and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion to extend service as academic.
- U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Aprile2026 NY Slip Op 05569
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the order granting service by publication because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default or evidence of fraud, mistake, or excusable neglect. Additionally, the court held that the defendant was precluded from asserting a statute of limitations defense because he had not successfully vacated his default in the action.
- Siepel v Krywak2026 NY Slip Op 05566
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to compel an additional independent medical examination. The court found that the defendant failed to establish the necessity for a second examination, as the initial examiner had already reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records and did not indicate that further examination was required.
- Pligavko v Chimples2026 NY Slip Op 05561
The defendants waived the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by stipulating to it and answering the original complaint without raising the defense. The Supreme Court erred in sua sponte denying the summary judgment motion based on jurisdiction and should have dispensed with the requirement to answer the amended complaint, which only corrected paragraph numbering.
- Park National Capital Funding, LLC v 670 Park Place, LLC, et al.2026 NY Slip Op 05548
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the foreclosure action under CPLR 3211(a)(4) because the defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial identity of parties or substantially the same relief sought in the related action. Additionally, the court upheld the condition requiring the defendant to post a $100,000 bond as a prerequisite for the stay of proceedings.
- Matter of Zhang v Feiner2026 NY Slip Op 05546
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order and remitted the matter for a hearing to determine the validity of service of process on the Town Supervisor. The court found that the initial service failed to comply with CPLR 7804(c) and that the subsequent service was sufficiently disputed by specific facts to warrant a hearing.
- Matter of Garnet Health Med. Ctr. v People2026 NY Slip Op 05530
The Appellate Division affirmed the findings of civil contempt against the petitioner for violating court orders but modified the sanctions. The court held that because actual damages were not established, the daily fines imposed by the lower court were improper and must be replaced with a statutory fine of $250 plus reasonable costs and expenses.
- Matter of Garnet Health Med. Ctr. v People2026 NY Slip Op 05529
The court affirmed the denial of the petition to quash the Attorney General’s subpoena, finding that the requested documents were reasonably related to the investigation into the hospital’s toxicology testing policies. The court further held that the Office of the Attorney General qualified as a health oversight agency under HIPAA, thereby permitting the disclosure of patient records.
- Kopitova v New York City Tr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05524
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to validly serve a notice of claim by e-mail, which was not a prescribed method of service. The defendant did not waive the objection to the defective service because it promptly notified the plaintiff that it did not accept service via e-mail.
- Flagstar Bank, FSB v Roberts2026 NY Slip Op 05519
The court affirmed the order vacating a dismissal for abandonment because the plaintiff’s timely request for a judicial intervention and settlement conference constituted sufficient proceedings to negate intent to abandon the action. Additionally, the court held that the motion to vacate the dismissal order was not subject to a specific time limitation.
- Fernandez v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.2026 NY Slip Op 05518
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, finding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the defendant Jet Blue spoliated video evidence after receiving a preservation demand. The court directed that an adverse inference charge be given at trial if the trier of fact determines that spoliation occurred.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc., appellant, v Salah Mohamed, respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05516
The court held that a sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure complaint was improper because the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a status conference order did not constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for such an action. Consequently, the dismissal order was vacated, the action was restored to the active calendar, and the matter was remitted for a determination on the merits of the motion to confirm the referee’s report.
- ACM MCC VI LLC v Able Liquidation Three2026 NY Slip Op 51633[U]
The court ordered defendants to fully respond to post-judgment information subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum by October 30, 2026, rejecting the argument that a Notice of Judgment Debtor was required. The court also scheduled a future conference to address the non-compliance of nonparties, noting that proof of actual receipt is necessary for contempt proceedings against them.
- Rivera v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05502
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer, finding no abuse of discretion. The court determined that the defendant’s late opposition was properly accepted and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice.
- Our Children’s Found., Inc. v OvaLab, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05485
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, finding that the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default. The court determined that the defendant’s participation in settlement discussions provided actual notice of the action in time to defend.
- Nationstar Mtge. LLC v Gomez2026 NY Slip Op 05484
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a summary judgment order, finding that the trial court properly exercised its inherent powers to correct an administrative error. The defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for not opposing the summary judgment motion after the administrative dismissal was vacated.
- Interasian Digital Technology Holdings Ltd. v In Jin Moon Park2026 NY Slip Op 05478
The judgment was reversed because the plaintiff’s evidence was submitted via a defective attorney affirmation that failed to comply with CPLR 2106. Additionally, the defendant was not liable for her ex-husband’s fraudulent conveyances because she did not participate in the transfer of assets or benefit from the scheme.
- Holness v Gold Crest Care Ctr. Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05477
The Appellate Division lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the plaintiff failed to notice an appeal from the final judgment, and the right to appeal the intermediate order terminated upon the entry of that judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as taken from a non-appealable paper.
- Foster v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05471
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s assault and defamation claims, finding the assault claim time-barred and the defamation statements not cognizable. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for reargument and the refusal to vacate the money judgment for costs.
- Bruno v Lafaro2026 NY Slip Op 05465
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of a motion to change venue because the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that the defendant did not reside in Bronx County at the time the action was commenced. The court found that the defendants’ submission of an unsupported affirmation regarding residency was insufficient to shift the burden to the plaintiff.
- US Bank Trust National Association v Patricia Smith2026 NY Slip Op 05463
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of a default judgment motion and grant of a dismissal cross-motion, finding that a traverse hearing was necessary to determine if service was properly effectuated. The court held that the defendant’s affidavit sufficiently rebutted the plaintiff’s prima facie evidence of service due to significant discrepancies in the description of the person served.
Week ending September 26, 2026
Browse the week ending September 26, 2026
- Matter of New York State Police v Owen WW.2026 NY Slip Op 05452
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of an extreme risk protection order, holding that CPLR article 63-A does not require proof that the respondent threatened harm with a firearm or currently possesses one. The court determined that the statutory standard focuses on the likelihood of serious harm to self or others, and imposing a firearm-specific prerequisite was an erroneous legal standard that foreclosed the petitioner from presenting its proof.
- Matter of Coleman v Martuscello2026 NY Slip Op 05450
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the regulatory time limits for prison disciplinary hearings are directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the substantial prejudice required to annul the disciplinary determination based on the delay in the hearing.
- Oparaji v Turkish Airlines, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 51533[U]
The appeal was dismissed without costs because the plaintiff failed to perfect the appeal by submitting a sufficient appendix. The court found the appendix patently insufficient as it omitted the papers underlying the motion, including the defendant’s opposition and a prior order.
- Matter of UBS Sec. LLC v Dondero2026 NY Slip Op 05460
The court held that the ‘transaction attacked’ in a veil-piercing claim can be a subsequent asset transfer designed to frustrate judgment recovery, not just the original underlying transaction. While the alter ego claim against Dondero survived for the corporate entities, it was dismissed regarding limited partnerships and against Ellington for lack of sufficient allegations of complete domination.
- Gilbert v Powers2026 NY Slip Op 05457
The court modified the lower court’s order to deny plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment except to the extent premised on Bradford Winston’s bad faith litigation conduct, finding that broad collateral estoppel against other board members was unwarranted. Additionally, the court reversed the order quashing subpoenas, holding that the nonparties did not establish that the discovery sought was utterly irrelevant or futile.
- Corporate Woods 15, LLC v West Bradford Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 51642[U]
The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration because the petitioners failed to demonstrate a fair probability of success on the merits, specifically regarding the interpretation of the operating agreements and fiduciary duties. The court ordered the defendant to arbitrate the claims and stayed the declaratory judgment action during the pendency of the arbitration.
- Weber v Barnett2026 NY Slip Op 05439
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction because the defendants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or a danger of irreparable injury. The court determined that money damages were an adequate remedy for the alleged losses regarding the distribution of real property sale proceeds.
- Stanley Supply & Tool, Inc. v Smallwood2026 NY Slip Op 05436
The Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to direct a nonparty to turn over monies pursuant to CPLR 5225, requiring the plaintiff to commence a special proceeding instead. Consequently, the court modified the order to deny the plaintiff’s cross-motion for turnover.
- SMG Automotive Holdings, LLC v Brooklyn Store, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05435
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to grant the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss several affirmative defenses that were without merit or abandoned, while affirming the denial of summary judgment on the first cause of action because the motion was premature. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the counterclaims because the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of eliminating triable issues of fact.
- Pierre v Sunrise Med. Labs.2026 NY Slip Op 05430
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to restore the action to the trial calendar because the prior order only decided the summary judgment motion against one defendant and did not dismiss claims against others. However, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to resettle the order to correct a footnote, as it was unnecessary to correct a nondispositive recitation of facts.
- C.N. v Sigma Delta Tau Socy.2026 NY Slip Op 05405
The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) prevents the enforcement of predispute arbitration agreements in negligence actions that have a logical nexus to a sexual assault dispute, even if the defendant did not commit the assault. The court held that the EFAA applies broadly to claims that ‘relate to’ the underlying sexual assault, rendering the arbitration clause unenforceable.
- Matter of Kopald v Town of Highlands N.Y. Zoning Bd. of Appeals2026 NY Slip Op 05397
The Appellate Division affirmed the money judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and imposing a monetary sanction on the petitioner for frivolous conduct. The court held that the lower court providently exercised its discretion in determining the amount of fees and sanctions, noting that the failure to submit a retainer agreement was not fatal to the fee application.
- Man Ling Chan Lam v Qing Yun Xiao2026 NY Slip Op 05389
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the bank, title company, and title closer because the plaintiff failed to allege specific facts showing those defendants intentionally misrepresented material facts or that the plaintiff relied on such misrepresentations. The court also upheld the denial of leave to amend, finding the proposed negligence and aiding and abetting fraud claims were speculative and conclusory.
- Federal National Mortgage Association v Cassis2026 NY Slip Op 05381
The defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by filing a general notice of appearance and failing to raise the defense in a timely manner. Additionally, the defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue was properly denied because it was untimely and failed to demonstrate unusual or unanticipated circumstances.
- DBW TL HOLDCO 2014, LLC v Kirk2026 NY Slip Op 05379
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to discontinue the action against one defendant and to amend the judgment. The court held that the motion should be granted because the parties reached a settlement and no substantial prejudice or improper results would arise from the discontinuance.
- Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v Hollister Fleming2026 NY Slip Op 51525[U]
The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff was not aggrieved by the order granting a new trial, which vacated the prior dismissal. Additionally, the appeal from the original judgment was dismissed as academic because it had been superseded by the subsequent order.
Week ending September 19, 2026
Browse the week ending September 19, 2026
- Health Value Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.2026 NY Slip Op 51594[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s order vacating a judgment because the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating it had not received a release or stipulation of discontinuance. Consequently, the plaintiff was not required to prove it had tendered those documents in opposition to the motion.
- Tibta v 156 E. 21, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51592[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s order holding the landlord in civil contempt because the petitioner failed to establish that the landlord violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court. The court found that the original judgment did not explicitly obligate the landlord to facilitate the removal of the new tenant, nor did the landlord create impediments to the execution of the warrant of eviction.
- Discover Bank v Lewis2026 NY Slip Op 51590[U]
The court reversed the lower court’s order and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of service by proving he did not reside at the address where process was served.
- Midwood Metropolitan Medical, P.C. v Permanent General Assurance Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 51589[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s order vacating a default judgment because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default. The court held that the defendant’s claim of non-receipt was insufficient to overcome the prima facie evidence of proper service on its registered agent.
- Delgado v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05366
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss sexual assault and battery claims, finding that the acts constituted discrete torts timely under the Adult Survivor Act. The court modified the decision to dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim only to the extent the underlying acts occurred in Nevada, where they were untimely.
- Zeltser v Kukolev2026 NY Slip Op 05353
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims for breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and partition, as they were barred by the statute of frauds or failed to state a cause of action. However, the court affirmed the denial of dismissal for the unjust enrichment counterclaims, finding that the statute of frauds does not preclude quasi-contractual recovery.
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Dresdner2026 NY Slip Op 05350
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c). The court held that the plaintiff failed to take proceedings for entry of judgment within one year of default and failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay.
- Williams v Orange County2026 NY Slip Op 05349
The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff did not oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss and therefore is not considered aggrieved under CPLR 5511. The court held that a party is not aggrieved when they ask for relief against them, which they do not oppose, and that relief is granted.
- Visco v Riverhead Cent. Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 05347
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a unified trial on liability and damages because they failed to establish that the nature of the injuries was inextricably intertwined with the issue of liability. The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate that their expert’s theory could not be adequately proven during the liability phase of a bifurcated trial.
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v Morrison2026 NY Slip Op 05346
The court held that a plaintiff’s failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale as directed by a prior order was not sufficient grounds for a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Consequently, the lower court’s order dismissing the action without prejudice was reversed and the action was restored to the active calendar.
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v McKenzie2026 NY Slip Op 05345
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to assemble a proper record on appeal. The record was inadequate for meaningful appellate review due to the omission of all relevant papers before the Supreme Court on the cross-motion for leave to renew.
- Sosa v Gonzaga2026 NY Slip Op 05337
The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to comply with the service directives in the order to show cause. Consequently, the order granting the motion was reversed and the motion was denied.
- Shanahan v County of Rockland2026 NY Slip Op 05335
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s fraud and tortious interference claims, determining that while res judicata did not bar the action, the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The court found the plaintiff failed to allege actual pecuniary loss or justifiable reliance for fraud, and failed to allege malice or improper means for tortious interference.
- Santorelli Builders, LLC v 146 Norris Realty, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05334
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to vacate a default judgment because the plaintiff did not receive actual notice of the scheduled conference. The court held that in the absence of actual notice, a party’s failure to appear is a nullity and vacatur is required as a matter of law.
- NRT New York, LLC v Bespoke Real Estate, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05318
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint, finding that the claims for breach of contract and fraudulent concealment were barred by collateral estoppel. The court determined that the issues regarding the defendants’ concealment of information were necessarily decided against the plaintiff in a prior action.
- Ninth Street Corp. v Fernandez2026 NY Slip Op 05317
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment because they failed to present a reasonable excuse for their default. Additionally, the defendants did not provide evidence of fraud, mistake, or other grounds warranting the court’s inherent power to relieve them from the judgment.
- Ninth Street Corp. v Fernandez2026 NY Slip Op 05316
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment because they failed to present a reasonable excuse for their default. The court determined that the defendants’ claim that the complaint’s allegations were false constituted intrinsic fraud, which requires both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense.
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Adekoje2026 NY Slip Op 05315
The appellate court reversed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion, holding that the conditional order of dismissal was defective for failing to provide proper statutory notice under CPLR 3216. Additionally, the court vacated the tolling of interest because the plaintiff was denied due process by not being afforded notice or an opportunity to be heard on that issue.
- Merchant Cash & Capital, LLC v Blueshyft, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05304
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order imposing a sanction on nonparty Mark Yosef, finding that his conduct as counsel was not frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c). Consequently, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding costs and attorney’s fees against Yosef.
- Mees v Buiter2026 NY Slip Op 05303
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew her opposition to the dismissal of her complaint because she failed to demonstrate new facts or provide reasonable justification for her delay. Additionally, the court denied the motion to vacate the prior order under CPLR 5015(a)(3) due to an unreasonable delay and a failure to establish fraud or misconduct.
- Marchand v NPL Consulting Servs., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05302
The court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims because the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege justifiable reliance, as the plaintiff was an experienced businessperson who did not conduct due diligence. The court also dismissed the General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims because the complaint alleged a private contract dispute rather than consumer-oriented conduct.
- HSBC Bank USA, National Association, etc., v Joslet Foster, et al., defendants, CitiMortgage, Inc., respondent2026 NY Slip Op 05291
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against CitiMortgage as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c) because the plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in seeking a default judgment. The court found that the plaintiff’s explanations regarding stays and separate litigation were insufficient to account for years of inactivity.
- Houghton v Piperaro2026 NY Slip Op 05290
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting defendants’ motions to preclude evidence under CPLR 3126. The court held that the defendants failed to make a clear showing that the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with discovery demands was willful or contumacious.
- Savannah Grey v William J. Grey, Sr.2026 NY Slip Op 05287
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff’s causes of action sufficiently stated viable claims for common-law intentional torts. The court determined that the allegations, liberally construed, fit within cognizable legal theories for sexual abuse, sexual assault, assault, and battery.
- Greene v Five Towns Premier Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr.2026 NY Slip Op 05286
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice, holding that a dismissal for lack of capacity to sue does not preclude the plaintiff from utilizing the six-month savings period under CPLR 205(a). The court determined that there is no restriction on the number of times a plaintiff may qualify for this statutory grace period when the prior dismissal was based solely on the failure to obtain letters of administration.
- Ditech Financial, LLC v Epstein2026 NY Slip Op 05279
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the nonparty’s motion to vacate a prior order because the nonparty failed to demonstrate a basis for relief under CPLR 5015(a). Additionally, the nonparty did not provide evidence of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect necessary to warrant vacatur in the interests of substantial justice.
- Cole v Shorter2026 NY Slip Op 05273
The court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint, holding that the defendant’s conclusory and unsubstantiated affidavit denying residence at the service address was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit. Consequently, the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was properly denied.
- Bellavia v Hoppenstein2026 NY Slip Op 05267
The court affirmed the denial of a motion to change venue because the defendant failed to demonstrate witness inconvenience, and it affirmed the dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaims for abuse of process, injunctive relief, and libel. Although the lower court improperly relied on a nonconforming affirmation, the dismissal was proper because the counterclaims failed to state causes of action.
- Alvarez v 100-10 67th Rd. Condominium2026 NY Slip Op 05261
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order by substituting an adverse inference charge for the preclusion of the defendants’ liability defense. The court found that while the defendants were negligent in failing to preserve surveillance video, the harsher sanction of precluding their defense was an improvident exercise of discretion.
Week ending September 5, 2026
Browse the week ending September 5, 2026
- Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP2026 NY Slip Op 05231
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s decision to set aside the jury verdict and reinstate dismissed counterclaims, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The court held that the theoretical risk of inconsistent verdicts in a future trial was insufficient to justify disturbing the favorable jury verdict on the counterclaims.
- Velasquez v Kelly2026 NY Slip Op 05211
The appellate court dismissed the third-party defendant’s appeal for lack of standing and modified the lower court’s order to vacate the conditional striking of the defendant’s answer. The court determined that the defendant complied with the discovery order by demonstrating the requested footage did not exist and that he had a potentially meritorious defense.
- Vaynman v 3 Kings Point Realty, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05210
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal regarding the denial of reargument but modified the lower court’s order to grant the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the defendants’ second, third, and fifth counterclaims. The court found that the counterclaims for defamation, tortious interference, and common-law indemnification failed to meet the required pleading standards for specificity and factual allegations.
- Suffolk County Pub. Admr. v Davin’s Funeral Home, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05207
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal, holding that the plaintiff’s new action was timely commenced under the savings provision of CPLR 205(a). The court determined that the prior action terminated in April 2023, and the new action was commenced and served within the required six-month period.
- Sofra Mediterranean Grill, Ltd. v Chebli2026 NY Slip Op 05206
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order striking the defendant’s answer and third-party complaint, as well as the plaintiff’s amended complaint and the third-party defendants’ answer, due to willful and contumacious conduct. The court found that both sides demonstrated repeated failures to comply with court-ordered discovery demands and deposition schedules, justifying the severe sanctions under CPLR 3126.
- Ramos v 126th St. Equities, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05201
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order striking a notice to admit because it improperly sought admissions of legal conclusions or fundamental material issues. The court held that such matters are not suitable for a notice to admit and can be addressed through other discovery devices like depositions.
- Nouveau Elevator Industries, LLC v Eli Inzlicht Sprei2026 NY Slip Op 05189
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, finding that the process server’s affidavit established a presumption of proper service that the defendant failed to rebut. Additionally, the defendant did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default, rendering it unnecessary to consider whether he had a meritorious defense.
- Morgan v McLeod2026 NY Slip Op 05179
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service or that an extension was warranted in the interest of justice.
- Lopez-Martinez v Leroux2026 NY Slip Op 05176
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to lift a stay, finding that the prior dismissal order only applied to the decedent’s claim. The court held that the defendants failed to establish that the action was dismissed in its entirety, requiring a remittal for a determination on the merits of the surviving plaintiff’s motion.
- Lewis v New York City Tr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05175
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order compelling the production of the driver’s personnel file and policy manuals, finding them irrelevant under respondeat superior. It also modified the order to deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel additional depositions, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that existing witnesses were inadequate or that new witnesses possessed material information.
- HSBC Bank USA, National Association, etc., v Joy Wharton, etc., et al., defendants; Property 1501, LLC, nonparty-respondent2026 NY Slip Op 05172
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Joy Wharton as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c) due to the plaintiff’s failure to move for default judgment within one year. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the complaint against the remaining defendants under CPLR 306-b because the nonparty movant lacked standing as a successor in interest to those specific defendants.
- Hampshire Recreation, LLC v Village of Mamaroneck2026 NY Slip Op 05171
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order compelling the defendants to comply with discovery demands in a regulatory taking action. The court determined that the requested materials were reasonably calculated to yield information material and necessary to the prosecution of the action, specifically regarding investment-backed expectations and the character of government action.
Week ending August 22, 2026
Browse the week ending August 22, 2026
- 497 Van Cortlandt Park, LLC v Alsaidi2026 NY Slip Op 51578[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s order vacating a default judgment because the defendants failed to demonstrate that they did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend. The court found that testimony from a family member was insufficient to establish that the named defendant did not receive service, thereby precluding relief under CPLR 317 and CPLR 5015 (a) (1).
Week ending July 25, 2026
Browse the week ending July 25, 2026
- Matter of Evans v Martuscello2026 NY Slip Op 04723
The Appellate Division confirmed the disciplinary determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence including video and the petitioner’s statements. The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding due process claims about the hearing officer’s ex parte actions, and that the failure to have the nurse endorse the report was harmless.
- Matter of Tripodi v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision2026 NY Slip Op 04676
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal because Executive Law § 259-i (4-a) provides for only one direct appeal as of right to a lower court, and there is no statutory or constitutional authorization for a second appeal to County Court.
- Fleischman v State of New York2026 NY Slip Op 04658
The Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for permission to file a late claim because the proposed claim was conclusory and failed to demonstrate merit without expert medical opinion. The denial was affirmed, though it was without prejudice to the filing of a new application with a more particularized showing.
- Partners & Napier Inc. v DeRoller2026 NY Slip Op 04656
The appeal is dismissed as moot except for demands 13, 14, and 15, where the order is affirmed because the lower court did not abuse its discretion in directing the production of material and necessary documents. The court rejected the argument that the order was issued sua sponte, noting the relief was requested in the motion papers and supported by the broad discretion inherent in supervising discovery.
- Ryan v Cunningham2026 NY Slip Op 04645
The court affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint because the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit, as the Building Code does not create a private right of action. The court also upheld the denial of default judgment due to procedural deficiencies and the order prohibiting plaintiff from filing further motions without permission due to abuse of the judicial process.
- US Income Partners, LLC v Cypress Pointe FL Holdings, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 04634
The court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for an order of attachment and appointment of a temporary receiver, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits or provide clear evidentiary support. Additionally, the court upheld the stay of proceedings on the remaining causes of action pending the outcome of a related action due to substantial identity of parties and issues.
- Viola v SUNY Upstate Univ. Hosp.2026 NY Slip Op 04604
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of the application to file a late claim, finding that the claimant demonstrated the appearance of merit and that the delay was minimal. The court determined that the evidence of excessive force during restraint was sufficient to show a valid cause of action, despite the attorney’s delay in obtaining records.
- Vince’s Pizza Plus, Inc. v Dion DeFedericis2026 NY Slip Op 04598
The court held that the plaintiff’s claims were not barred by res judicata because New York’s permissive counterclaim rule allows separate claims to be brought in a second action if they do not impair rights established in the first. Additionally, the complaint was timely filed under CPLR 205(a) because it was commenced within six months of the prior action’s termination.
- Fraser v Cornelius2026 NY Slip Op 04594
The court affirmed the denial of sanctions for spoliation because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was involved in the destruction of the fence or that it occurred after the duty to preserve arose. Additionally, the court denied the motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses of comparative negligence, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove those defenses were without merit as a matter of law.
- Gianna T.D. v 64 West Chippewa Associates LLC et al.2026 NY Slip Op 04567
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to preclude the plaintiff from calling eight specific witnesses at trial. The court issued a memorandum decision consistent with its ruling in the related appeal number three.
- Edwards v Singer2026 NY Slip Op 04565
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the plaintiff’s signed release barred his personal injury claims. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the release was voidable due to mutual mistake or fraud, as his injuries were known at the time of signing.
Week ending June 20, 2026
Browse the week ending June 20, 2026
- Di Marco v New York City Off. of Comptroller2026 NY Slip Op 51304[U]
The court affirmed the order vacating a default judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate proper service of process on the corporate defendant. Personal service on a corporation must be made to a person authorized by statute, and substitute service is insufficient to acquire jurisdiction.
Week ending June 13, 2026
Browse the week ending June 13, 2026
- DeLoach v Assurant2026 NY Slip Op 51300[U]
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to establish that proper service of process was effectuated on the defendant. Since the affirmations of service did not demonstrate that the summons was delivered to an authorized agent of the correct entity, personal jurisdiction was never acquired.
- Cooper v Apostolic Gospel Church of Christ, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 51299[U]
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to set aside a small claims judgment, determining that the motion was untimely under CPLR 4405 and failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay. The court also clarified that CPLR 2221 does not permit reargument of a decision after trial.
- Cruz v Carannante2026 NY Slip Op 51295[U]
The appeal is dismissed because the lower court’s order staying the proceeding was based on a request for relief made without a proper notice of cross motion. Consequently, the order is not appealable as of right under CPLR 5701, and the court declined to grant leave to appeal.
Week ending January 17, 2026
Browse the week ending January 17, 2026
- M.T. v Yeshiva Univ.251 AD3d 150
The court held that the Child Victims Act does not violate the Due Process Clause or the Supremacy Clause because final federal judgments dismissing time-barred claims do not create a constitutionally protected vested property right. Consequently, the state legislature may revive time-barred claims without abrogating any vested rights held by the defendants.
Also decided
- Matter of People v Maginley-Liddie 2026 NY Slip Op 06561 November 10, 2026
- Mount Sinai Health Partners IPA, LLC v Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York 2026 NY Slip Op 51869(U) November 6, 2026
- Matter of Marshall-Gibson v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 06505 November 5, 2026
- Youngwall v Santos 2026 NY Slip Op 06487 November 4, 2026
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Kogan 2026 NY Slip Op 06486 November 4, 2026
- UMB Bank, National Association, etc., v 68 Colonial, LLC, et al. 2026 NY Slip Op 06483 November 4, 2026
- Racines v Son 2026 NY Slip Op 06474 November 4, 2026
- Newhouse v SSMG Realty, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 06312 October 28, 2026
- Pena v Dionisio 2026 NY Slip Op 06256 October 27, 2026
- Hyposwiss Private Bank Genève SA v JLRE4 LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 06247 October 27, 2026
- Gilbert v Powers 2026 NY Slip Op 06200 October 22, 2026
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v Nektalov 2026 NY Slip Op 06163 October 21, 2026
- Matter of Lo Vacco v Pickholz 2026 NY Slip Op 06011 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Coleman v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 06048 October 15, 2026
- Cullinan v New York Univ. 2026 NY Slip Op 05999 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Stevenson v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 05837 October 8, 2026
- Matter of Greenland v James 2026 NY Slip Op 05836 October 8, 2026
- Hammer & Steele, Inc. v Environmental Mgt. Consultants, Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05853 October 8, 2026
- Guliyev v Banilov & Assoc., P.C. 2026 NY Slip Op 05773 October 7, 2026
- Hedman Resources Ltd. v Occidental Chem. Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 05700 October 2, 2026
- Mosey v Office of Ct. Admin. 2026 NY Slip Op 05699 October 2, 2026
- Tri Trekkers, LLC v Rigberg 2026 NY Slip Op 05666 October 2, 2026
- 2055 Walden Ave., Inc. v 2115 Walden Ave, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 05651 October 2, 2026
- Hoskins v Hoskins 2026 NY Slip Op 05648 October 2, 2026
- Ryan v Cunningham 2026 NY Slip Op 05622 October 2, 2026
- Matter of Keitt v Uhler 2026 NY Slip Op 05576 October 1, 2026
- Infante v Manolarakis 2026 NY Slip Op 05522 September 30, 2026
- Stepton-Howard v Metropolitan N.Y. Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. 2026 NY Slip Op 05504 September 29, 2026
- Greenfield v Greenfield 2026 NY Slip Op 05475 September 29, 2026
- Carranza v Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases 2026 NY Slip Op 05466 September 29, 2026
- Burns-Tetteh v Goldfarb Props.-Pelican Mgt., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 51530[U] September 24, 2026
- Saintvilus v Hall 2026 NY Slip Op 05433 September 23, 2026
- NewRez, LLC v Shannon 2026 NY Slip Op 05407 September 23, 2026
- Guthrie v New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital 2026 NY Slip Op 05383 September 23, 2026
- DBW TL HOLDCO 2014, LLC v Kirk 2026 NY Slip Op 05380 September 23, 2026
- Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Lois 2026 NY Slip Op 51526[U] September 22, 2026
- De Filippis v Lenox Hill Radiology & Med. Imaging Assoc., P.C. 2026 NY Slip Op 51591[U] September 18, 2026
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Nii Badu Kotei 2026 NY Slip Op 05344 September 16, 2026
- Matter of Cruz v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 05219 September 3, 2026
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Schwartz 2026 NY Slip Op 05213 September 2, 2026
- Druzhinsky v Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05163 September 2, 2026
- Aurora Loan Services, LLC v Miller 2026 NY Slip Op 05153 September 2, 2026
- Python Financial Solutions, Inc. v SDCK I LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 51450(U) September 2, 2026
- Jones v State of New York 2026 NY Slip Op 04606 July 24, 2026
- Fraser v Cornelius 2026 NY Slip Op 04593 July 24, 2026
- Matter of Kadenhead v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 04575 July 24, 2026
- Gianna T.D. v 64 West Chippewa Associates LLC et al. 2026 NY Slip Op 04566 July 24, 2026
- Matter of Sandlers v Martuscello 90 Misc 3d 256 April 6, 2026
- Michaelis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB 90 Misc 3d 234 April 3, 2026
- SCPS, LLC v Kind Law 90 Misc 3d 267 March 31, 2026
- P.P.S. v C.J.G. 89 Misc 3d 1154 March 6, 2026
- GUERRERO v MARTUSCELLO 252 AD3d 54 March 5, 2026
- D.G. v Rodriguez 89 Misc 3d 988 February 10, 2026
- Deutsche Bank v LeTennier 251 AD3d 97 January 8, 2026