New York Law Watch
Personal Injury and Negligence: 2026 decisions
Injury claims based on negligence are grouped here, including records on premises, vehicles, products, causation and the allocation of responsibility.
For Personal Injury and Negligence, 2026 decisions, Law Watch lists 174 indexable decisions dated January 22, 2026 to November 12, 2026 across 16 decision weeks.
190 decision records: 174 meet the substance floor; 16 records are held from search listings.
Week ending November 14, 2026
Browse the week ending November 14, 2026
- Tenelema v H.T. Lyons Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06587
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of leave to serve a late notice of claim against Lavelle School for the Blind. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim or provided a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing.
- Cisario v Abele Tractor & Equip. Co., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06603
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the Town’s motion to dismiss because the record was insufficient to determine if the written notice provided to a highway department employee satisfied the statutory requirement of notice to the town clerk or superintendent of highways. The court found that discovery was necessary to clarify the internal forwarding of the notice and the functional equivalent of the abolished superintendent position.
- Larrea v Sanitation Salvage Corp. et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06575
The court affirmed the exclusion of defendants’ biomechanical expert because the methodology was not generally accepted and lacked probative value due to unsupported assumptions. The court modified the judgment to reduce the past pain and suffering award from $2,000,000 to $1,350,000, finding the original amount materially deviated from reasonable compensation.
- De Los Santos v 512-514 Realty LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06570
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the negligence claims due to triable issues of fact regarding smoke alarms, door maintenance, and superintendent training. However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress because the plaintiff failed to witness the decedent’s injury.
- Walsh v Singho2026 NY Slip Op 06568
The Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment granted to the defendants, finding that the dashboard video and affidavits raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the defendant driver failed to yield and whether that failure was a proximate cause of the accident. The court determined that the police report and officer’s testimony were insufficient to establish the absence of fault.
- Ukekweh v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06567
The complaint against defendant Tabaroki was properly dismissed because the plaintiff failed to plead actual malice, a required element for a malicious prosecution claim. Additionally, the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim was unpreserved and lacked evidence that the defendant acted under color of law.
- Then v Meridian Realty Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06566
The appellate court reversed the summary judgment granted to the property owners because they failed to eliminate issues of fact regarding the plaintiff’s ability to identify the cause of her fall and the existence of constructive notice. The court affirmed the dismissal against a different defendant based on the plaintiff’s testimony that the accident occurred elsewhere.
Week ending November 7, 2026
Browse the week ending November 7, 2026
- Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch. v SBP N.Y. LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06540
The court affirmed the dismissal of a common-law indemnification claim because the underlying complaint failed to allege that the indemnitor was vicariously liable for the indemnitee’s conduct. Vicarious liability is a necessary predicate for common-law indemnity, which was absent here.
- Rosenthal v State of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06504
The court held that a whistleblower retaliation claim under Civil Service Law § 75-b may be based on a government’s passive inaction rather than affirmative misconduct, reversing the dismissal of that claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of the defamation claim as untimely and the due process claim due to the availability of adequate alternative remedies.
- Love v Chang Li Supermarket, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06527
The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the complaint against the out-of-possession landlord because it failed to establish it was not contractually obligated to repair the roof, which caused the puddle. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the tenant supermarket because triable issues of fact remained regarding actual or constructive notice of the hazard.
- Latifaj v 1251 Ams. Assoc., LP2026 NY Slip Op 06526
The court affirmed the grant of contractual indemnification to ABM Security and ABM Onsite against Universal, finding that the Asset Purchase Agreement clearly shifted liability for the security business. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the cross-claim for contribution against Universal because it was found to be free from negligence as a matter of law.
- 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.
- Webb v Primez Trucking, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06484
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment on liability, finding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of negligence through the rear-end collision. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a nonnegligent explanation or the emergency doctrine, particularly given the driver’s admission that he did not see the plaintiffs’ vehicle until impact.
- Sanih v Ben & Nino Auto Repair, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06476
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that conflicting testimony regarding the accident raised a credibility issue for the jury, thereby precluding judgment as a matter of law. Additionally, the court determined that the erroneous admission of photographs was harmless and that counsel’s improper comments did not deprive the plaintiff of a fair trial.
- Rahman v B & K Realty Assoc., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06475
The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the City of New York due to the lack of prior written notice but reversed the dismissal against the non-City defendants. The non-City defendants failed to establish that they did not create the hazardous condition involving the fence in the tree well.
- Palacio v Boro Tr., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06448
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on liability, finding that the bus driver was negligent for making a right turn from the left lane in violation of traffic laws. The court also held that the plaintiff was not comparatively negligent because the abrupt turn left him insufficient time to avoid the collision.
- Imtiaz v Tapia2026 NY Slip Op 06422
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order, granting the defendants leave to amend their answer to assert the emergency doctrine and granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. The court found that the defendants established they were not negligent in responding to an emergency not of their own making, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
- Haynes v Lemus2026 NY Slip Op 06420
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint, finding that the jury’s verdict that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. The court held that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence, particularly given the presence of conflicting expert testimony.
- Gomez v Khatib2026 NY Slip Op 06419
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the driver and Lyft defendants because the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding a potential impact with a third vehicle. The defendants failed to establish their freedom from negligence as a matter of law due to conflicting accounts of the number of impacts involved in the accident.
- 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.
- Eagan v Gingo2026 NY Slip Op 06417
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) because their experts did not adequately substantiate that the plaintiff’s limitations were voluntary. The plaintiff established a prima facie case of liability and lack of comparative negligence by proving her vehicle was stopped at a red light when struck in the rear.
- DSSR Realty Corp v President Sai II, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06416
The court granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants were strictly liable for property damage caused by excavation under the New York City Building Code. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as time-barred because the property continued to sustain damages within the statutory period.
- Cinque v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06411
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, finding the allegations sufficient to state viable causes of action. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the prima facie tort claim because the complaint failed to allege disinterested malevolence or specific pecuniary special damages.
- Baier v City of Long Beach2026 NY Slip Op 06407
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the assisted living facility because the facility failed to establish that it did not control the area where the plaintiff fell. The court also granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion to amend the bill of particulars, finding no prejudice to the defendant.
- Allen v Bradley2026 NY Slip Op 06404
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendants because they established that the third-party driver’s negligence per se was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact to rebut the defendants’ prima facie showing of non-fault.
- Al-Hamid v New York City Tr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 06403
The court granted summary judgment on liability against the rear-end driver because their claim of brake failure was contradicted by evidence that the brakes were functioning properly. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing the comparative fault defense, as the plaintiff was an innocent passenger, but denied the motion to dismiss the seatbelt defense due to triable issues of fact.
- 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
- Matter of Connolly v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06383
The court affirmed the denial of leave to file a late notice of claim because the petitioner failed to prove the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claim or that the City was not prejudiced by the delay. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay, as his claim of incapacity was contradicted by his own affidavit.
- Williams v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06348
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendant because the defendant established that its actions did not deviate from accepted medical standards. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact by not submitting an expert affirmation in opposition.
- Velasquez v 88 Cypress, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06346
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged sidewalk defect was trivial or that it lacked constructive notice. The court found the defendant’s expert affidavit insufficient because the inspection occurred more than three years after the accident without proof the condition remained unchanged.
- Matter of T. C. v New York City Dept. of Educ.2026 NY Slip Op 06308
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim because the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Department of Education had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim. The court determined that the submitted reports indicated the crowd merely furnished the occasion for the accident, rather than showing that the municipality committed a potentially actionable wrong through negligent supervision.
- Milonas v Piro2026 NY Slip Op 06297
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s personal injury claim because the defendant established that the plaintiff negligently entered the roadway without yielding the right-of-way, which was the sole proximate cause of the collision. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the defendant’s fault.
- Melendez v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06294
The court affirmed the dismissal of the personal injury complaint because the plaintiff failed to prove that the City received prior written notice of the specific crosswalk defect. The evidence showed that the symbols on the Big Apple maps did not correspond to the alleged defect, failing to satisfy the statutory condition precedent.
- Matos-Matos v City of Yonkers2026 NY Slip Op 06293
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, granting the City’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The court held that the City established it lacked prior written notice of the sidewalk defect and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the affirmative negligence exception applied.
- Henshaw v Chelsea DHC, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06285
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s personal injury claim, finding that the defendants established the square opening in the fire escape was an open and obvious condition that was not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. The court further determined that the defendants maintained the property in a reasonably safe condition, and the plaintiff’s evidence failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
- Blackshear v City of Yonkers2026 NY Slip Op 06277
The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s personal injury claim because the defendants established that the fire truck driver complied with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 safety requirements. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the driver acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others.
- 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.
- Santana v Emerald 85-87 Vermilyea, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06266
The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because the defendants established they lacked actual or constructive notice of the defect. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as his affidavits contradicted his deposition testimony and his post-filing allegations regarding handrails were untimely.
- Pemberton v Liberty Ashes Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06255
The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because the defendants established the plaintiff ran a red light and rode against one-way traffic. The court found the plaintiff’s expert opinions regarding the defendant’s marijuana use and speeding were speculative, conclusory, and contradicted by admissible GPS and video evidence.
- Martinez v 561 W. 144 Realty LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06251
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment because the defendant failed to establish that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the defective ceiling. The plaintiff’s testimony that building staff painted over visible mold created a triable issue of fact regarding the defendant’s knowledge of the defect.
- Brown v Parkchester Preserv. Mgt.2026 NY Slip Op 06240
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment because the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding whether a storm was in progress at the time of the fall. Additionally, the record presented unresolved questions about whether black ice existed prior to the storm and whether the defendant had constructive notice of the condition.
Week ending October 24, 2026
Browse the week ending October 24, 2026
- Williams v Dia2026 NY Slip Op 06232
The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff regarding liability against the defendant driver, finding him negligent as a matter of law, but reinstated the complaint against the other driver because the first driver’s negligence did not preclude comparative fault by the second. The court also held that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact on causation through her expert’s opinion.
- Janof v Auto Warehouse2026 NY Slip Op 06189
The court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial because the verdict sheet was internally inconsistent, as it allowed the jury to find the airbag design was not reasonably safe but that the manufacturer was not negligent in selecting that same design. The court determined that separate interrogatories for strict products liability and negligent design were redundant given the substantial factual overlap between the claims.
- Maldonado v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06201
Summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the City had prior written notice of the specific defect or affirmatively created it. The City’s records showed no written complaints about the specific bump, and photographs of other nearby defects did not constitute a written acknowledgment of the injury-causing condition.
- Young v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06166
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants failed to demonstrate prima facie that they did not receive prior written notice of the defective boardwalk condition. The supporting affidavit was insufficient because it did not unequivocally assert that the search failed to reveal notice and did not attach the searched records.
- Ruiz v Town of Southampton2026 NY Slip Op 06158
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on liability because the defendants provided a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision, creating a triable issue of fact. The appeal regarding the dismissal of affirmative defenses was dismissed due to an inadequate record lacking the defendants’ answer.
- Rivera v M. GS Talukder2026 NY Slip Op 06157
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the Uber defendants because they failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the driver was an employee or an independent contractor. The court determined that the classification of the driver as an employee or independent contractor is a factual issue for the jury, precluding summary judgment dismissal.
- Reyes v Chapman2026 NY Slip Op 06156
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of proving the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The defendants’ expert failed to adequately explain why the plaintiff’s significant limitations in range of motion were voluntary, and the submissions failed to eliminate triable issues regarding causation and the 90/180-day category.
- Pruessen v Richard Capobianco, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06155
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s judgment as a matter of law, finding that a rational jury could conclude the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with a vehicle already in the intersection. The court also held that the trial court improperly excluded photographs of vehicle damage that were relevant to establishing liability.
- Perkins v 34 215 St, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06154
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the notary complied with statutory identity verification obligations and that the title company was not liable for negligence to a non-contracting party absent evidence of fraud or special circumstances.
- McLean v Nelson2026 NY Slip Op 06108
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants failed to establish that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Additionally, the defendants did not demonstrate that the condition was open and obvious or not inherently dangerous as a matter of law.
- Liao v Sheng Sheng Constr., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06107
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because the plaintiff demonstrated that a falling post required securing for the undertaking and was not adequately secured. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the foreseeability of the risk or the proximate cause of the injury.
- Da Silva v Delshah-OTL-Start 22 Chapel Prop. Owner, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06094
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding their authority to supervise the work and their constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on specific Industrial Code violations, finding the cited regulations inapplicable to the facts.
- Burton v Gurung2026 NY Slip Op 06088
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the livery defendants because they established they were not at fault in the accident. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the cause of the collision or the prematurity of the motion.
- Baize v 24 Hour Fitness2026 NY Slip Op 06083
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for lost earnings because the plaintiff failed to prove actual past earnings with reasonable certainty. Additionally, the court held that while the plaintiff’s cross-motion was generally untimely, the branch concerning lost earnings could be entertained because it was based on nearly identical grounds to the defendants’ timely motion.
- Caban v Oscar’s Gold & Diamonds2026 NY Slip Op 51744[U]
The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to limit plaintiffs’ recovery to $550.00 because they failed to provide competent evidence that the converted jewelry was worth more. Additionally, the court ruled that plaintiffs were not entitled to damages based on the sentimental value of the items.
- Sanchez-Rodriguez v Bruce2026 NY Slip Op 06077
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding which vehicle was required to yield the right of way. The conflicting testimony and the obstruction caused by a third-party truck prevented a conclusive determination of liability as a matter of law.
- Mella v Russian Samovar, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06065
The out-of-possession landlord was not contractually obligated to maintain the lighting, which was not a structural defect, and was entitled to summary judgment on its cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The plaintiff’s expert evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the proximate cause of the accident.
Week ending October 17, 2026
Browse the week ending October 17, 2026
- Zigelstein v Shuping Tong2026 NY Slip Op 51714[U]
The court affirmed the dismissal of the trespass claim because the plaintiff failed to provide objective proof of property boundaries to establish a prima facie case. Additionally, the harassment claim was dismissed because New York law does not recognize a civil cause of action for harassment.
- Sowah v Oueteouakam2026 NY Slip Op 06035
The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious injury to her cervical and lumbar spine under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiff’s experts did not sufficiently address or rule out the chronic, degenerative changes identified by the defendant’s expert radiologist as the cause of her symptoms.
- Tullis v City of Yonkers2026 NY Slip Op 05987
The court affirmed the dismissal of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims against the officers and the City because identified citizens provided sufficient information to establish probable cause. The court further held that the City could not be held vicariously liable for the officers’ actions and dismissed the negligent supervision claim as a result.
- Salazar v Carol Joy Family Props., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05985
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the defendant mortgagee because it established that it was an out-of-possession mortgagee that did not own, possess, or control the property. Consequently, the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff for the dangerous condition on the sidewalk.
- Sadore Lane Gardens, Inc. v City of Yonkers2026 NY Slip Op 05984
The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the causal connection between the municipality’s alleged negligence and the flooding. The municipality was immune from liability for the design of its sewerage system and the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the maintenance agreement.
- Neil v Areeba, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05963
The court reversed the denial of leave to amend the complaint to add a Labor Law § 200 claim, finding it was not palpably insufficient. However, the court affirmed the denial of leave to add a Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the plaintiff’s duties as a porter did not involve the erection or demolition of a structure.
- Hidalgo v R.R. 590 Oak Family Limited Partnership2026 NY Slip Op 05943
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the defendants established that the injury was not the result of an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the falling glass was caused by the absence or inadequacy of a safety device prescribed by the statute.
- Fung v Exxon Mobil Oil Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 05937
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the abutting property owner because the defendant established that the City of New York controlled the fire hydrant that caused the plaintiff’s fall. The court determined that the property owner did not create the dangerous condition, make negligent repairs, or violate a statute imposing liability for the specific hazard.
- Escobar v Sanchez2026 NY Slip Op 05936
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing cross-claims against the front driver and finding liability for the rear-end collision, as the rear driver failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation. The emergency doctrine defense was rejected because the defendant’s affidavit contradicted his earlier statements in the police report, constituting a feigned issue of fact.
- Durante v Transform SR Brands, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05935
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the defendants established that the assault was unforeseeable, negating their duty to control third-party conduct. The plaintiff’s expert opinion was deemed conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding foreseeability.
- Bonilla-Acosta v Max Servs. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 05928
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The court found that the biomechanical expert’s opinions were insufficient to establish causation because he lacked the qualifications to render medical opinions on causation and improperly rejected the plaintiffs’ deposition testimonies.
- Vera v BH Broadway Owner LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05921
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the Dram Shop Act claim as asserted by the plaintiff in her individual capacity for loss of support. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the claim insofar as it was asserted on behalf of the decedent’s estate, as the statute does not allow the intoxicated person or their estate to sue for injuries resulting from their own intoxication.
- Cutter v Bayard’s Ale House2026 NY Slip Op 05902
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to an out-of-possession landlord because the lease granted a right of reentry for repairs and the plaintiff raised factual issues regarding specific statutory design safety violations. Additionally, the landlord’s cross-claim for contractual indemnification was properly denied because the tenant’s liability had not yet been established to trigger the indemnification duty.
Week ending October 10, 2026
Browse the week ending October 10, 2026
- Fuller v City of Buffalo2026 NY Slip Op 05881
The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the City defendants, determining that probable cause existed for the plaintiff’s arrest based on witness statements and officer testimony. Consequently, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and the claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process were properly dismissed.
- Jenkins v City of Utica2026 NY Slip Op 05872
The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the complaint regarding permanent and significant limitation of use, finding that the plaintiff’s injuries were preexisting and unsupported by objective evidence. However, the court modified the order to reinstate the complaint regarding the 90/180-day category of serious injury because the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of proof on that specific category.
- Kijanka v Orleans Community Health2026 NY Slip Op 05871
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of showing the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall. The court found that the plaintiff’s deposition testimony clearly identified a specific pothole as the cause, precluding the claim that her account was speculative.
- 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.
- Wims v River Park Bronx Apts., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05869
The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the defendants had actual notice of a wall leak and failed to properly remedy the condition. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff’s prior blocking of access proximately caused the injury, noting that the plaintiff had vacated the apartment to allow access.
- M.P. v Cosby2026 NY Slip Op 05859
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against the employer. The complaint did not allege that the employer’s property or resources were used to commit the tortious acts, but rather only to facilitate the initial meeting and grooming process.
- Rodriguez-Williams v John E. Andrus Mem., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05821
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding that the nursing home was entitled to immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) because the statutory requirements were met. The court further held that the plaintiff’s allegations of gross negligence and pre-pandemic negligence were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss as they were bare legal conclusions.
- Rodriguez v Duffy2026 NY Slip Op 05820
The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding that a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence that the defendant failed to rebut. The defendant’s claim that a sudden stop by the lead vehicle caused the accident was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact given the foreseeable traffic conditions.
- Rivera v Thomas2026 NY Slip Op 05818
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall or that the defendant lacked notice of the hazardous condition. The court also held that the defendant’s argument regarding the triviality of the condition was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
- Nunez v 672 Parkside, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05801
The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because the hazards were inherent to the work he was performing. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on specific Industrial Code violations as the debris was an integral part of the work.
- Matter of Defonce v Village of Port Chester2026 NY Slip Op 05786
The court affirmed the denial of the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim because the petitioner failed to establish that the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days. Additionally, the petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay or show that the delay would not substantially prejudice the municipality’s defense.
- Laignelet v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05777
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the defendant established it did not own, occupy, control, or make special use of the property where the accident occurred. Consequently, the defendant owed no duty of care under common law or Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
- Kawik v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.2026 NY Slip Op 05776
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint against the City of New York, finding that the documentary evidence failed to conclusively establish that the City was an out-of-possession landlord without a duty to maintain the premises. The court determined that significant factual disputes remained regarding whether the City retained control or affirmatively created the defective condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
- Johnson v Payne2026 NY Slip Op 05775
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment on liability because the defendants raised triable issues of fact regarding a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision. The court determined that the defendant driver’s affidavit alleging the plaintiff’s vehicle abruptly changed lanes and stopped suddenly was sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of negligence.
- Hyejun Cho v New York City Tr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05774
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the transit defendants, finding that they established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing the plaintiff’s driver violated traffic laws and was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The surveillance video conclusively established that the bus driver had the right-of-way and insufficient time to react, negating any triable issue of fact regarding comparative negligence.
- Grinberg v Vistas of Port Jefferson, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05772
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the defendants demonstrated the vehicle was stolen and the key was hidden from sight, thereby rebutting the presumption of permissive use under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1). Consequently, the defendants were entitled to dismissal of the complaint against them as a matter of law.
- K.G. v Barack Obama Sch. for Justice2026 NY Slip Op 05770
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, granting dismissal because the defendants established that the door was not in a defective condition and they lacked notice of any defect. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as their expert reports were conclusory and the plaintiff could not identify the specific mechanism of injury without speculation.
- 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.
- Davis v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05766
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege facts establishing a special duty or voluntary assumption of duty by the municipality. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, and the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.
- Cambero-Minaya v 211 Schermerhorn Dev., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05761
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to deny the defendants’ untimely cross-motion for summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1) claims, while affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to amend the bill of particulars, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the delay after discovery was completed.
- Bonilla v Village of Westbury2026 NY Slip Op 05760
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the Village of Westbury because the Village established it lacked prior written notice of the sidewalk defect. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the applicability of any exception to the written notice requirement.
- Vasquez v Uber Tech. Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05751
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims because she failed to establish a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiff’s expert testimony was insufficient to raise an issue of fact regarding causation due to a significant delay in examination and failure to address contrary expert opinions.
- Komlan v Belisle2026 NY Slip Op 05729
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because the submitted surveillance video was not dispositive of the claims and failed to irrefutably demonstrate the defendants’ negligence. The plaintiff did not establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability.
- Gomez v Uber Tech., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05722
The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the defendants established that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were preexisting degenerative conditions not caused by the collision. The plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding causation because his medical records were inadmissible and his treating physician did not examine him contemporaneously with the accident.
- Askins v Upstaging Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05715
The court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s serious injury claims because the defendants established that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by preexisting degenerative conditions rather than the accident. The plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact by not specifically addressing or ruling out these preexisting conditions in her expert’s opinion.
Week ending October 3, 2026
Browse the week ending October 3, 2026
- Weiss v D&D Partners Rochester, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05640
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the speed bump constituted a dangerous condition, the cause of the plaintiff’s fall, and whether the hazard was open and obvious. The court also held that the assumption of the risk doctrine was inapplicable to the premises liability claim.
- Picard v Cosby2026 NY Slip Op 05612
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege a sufficient nexus between the defendant company’s resources and the alleged assaults. The majority determined that merely using the studio to impress the plaintiff did not constitute using employer resources to commit independently tortious conduct.
- Garcia v Baco Enters., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05597
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the out-of-possession landlord because the lease language raised a question of fact regarding assumed repair obligations. The court also barred consideration of a proximate cause argument raised for the first time in reply papers.
- Ellis v State of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05596
The court affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful death claim because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the State owed a special duty to the infant. The State’s inaction or omissions in its government oversight functions, rather than affirmative actions placing the child in harm’s way, were insufficient to establish liability.
- Scamardella v A. Duie Pyle, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05565
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the City was not a proper party and that the school defendants owed no duty to warn against the open and obvious condition of the wooden pallet. The court found that the defendants established the condition was readily observable and not inherently dangerous, thereby defeating the plaintiff’s claim.
- Sagala v Zirs Servs., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05564
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury. Specifically, the defendants failed to submit competent medical evidence establishing that the plaintiff’s head and brain injuries were not serious or not caused by the accident.
- Rojas v 1388 Bushwick Ave, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05563
The court reversed the summary judgment dismissal against the property owner because the owner failed to establish a lack of constructive notice of the sidewalk defect. Conversely, the court affirmed the dismissal against the construction management company because the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the applicability of the Espinal exceptions.
- Matter of Tkebuchava v New York City Tr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05543
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim, finding that the public corporation had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the accident and that no substantial prejudice was demonstrated. Consequently, the petitioner’s failure to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay did not bar the granting of the petition.
- Abdullah v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05508
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order, denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the serious injury threshold because the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding causation. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability, finding that the rear-end collision established negligence and that the plaintiff was not comparatively at fault.
- Thomas v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05506
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, finding that the defendants established probable cause for the arrest and prosecution based on witness identification and the grand jury indictment. The court held that the existence of other potential avenues of police investigation does not vitiate probable cause.
- Gersic v Kuehner2026 NY Slip Op 05474
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding causation because his experts offered only conclusory opinions that his herniations were traumatic rather than degenerative. The court also granted summary judgment against the individual defendant based on the plaintiff’s failure to meet the serious injury threshold against the other defendant.
- Franco v Berger2026 NY Slip Op 05472
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s fraud claim as duplicative of the professional negligence claim and dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim because pets are currently considered personal property. The court noted that while pets are legally property, the evolving societal view of animals as sentient beings makes this a developing area of law.
- 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.
- Diaz v DeJesus2026 NY Slip Op 05469
Summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant because he demonstrated the absence of a triable issue of fact regarding his negligence by testifying that his car was stopped at an intersection when sideswiped. The defendants’ failure to raise a material issue of fact, despite conflicting accounts of the accident’s location, did not preclude judgment.
- Biz Capital, LLC v BBG, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05464
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the professional malpractice complaint as time-barred. The court determined that the statute of limitations began to run when the final appraisal was delivered to the plaintiff’s predecessor, which occurred more than three years before the action was commenced.
- Meimaris v Chase2026 NY Slip Op 51561[U]
The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant knew or should have known of her dog’s vicious propensities. Additionally, the court determined the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant failed to exercise due care, noting the plaintiff’s dog was the aggressor.
Week ending September 26, 2026
Browse the week ending September 26, 2026
- Castracane v Kasmier2026 NY Slip Op 05447
The court held that a release by an injured party does not preclude common-law indemnification claims against a settling tortfeasor, but such claims are unavailable where the non-settling parties are alleged to have committed their own independent acts of negligence. Because the defendants’ liability was based on their direct negligence rather than vicarious liability for the settler’s conduct, the cross-claims for common-law indemnification were properly dismissed.
- Segura v Smith2026 NY Slip Op 05434
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the comparative negligence defense because the police report created a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff’s sudden stop. However, the court modified the order to grant summary judgment dismissing the defenses of failure to wear a seatbelt and assumption of risk, as the plaintiff established he was wearing a seatbelt and the doctrine was inapplicable.
- Rojas v Riverhead Cent. Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 05432
The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the unsecured ladder shifted, causing the fall. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the school district on the contractual indemnification claim because it was not a party to the relevant agreement.
- Murphy v Gallegos2026 NY Slip Op 05404
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the defendants established prima facie that the police officer did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The officer’s slow and cautious maneuvering, despite a momentary lapse in judgment, did not meet the high threshold for reckless disregard required for liability under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e).
- Matter of Serpico-Maresca v Town of Hempstead2026 NY Slip Op 05403
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Town acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the statutory period. Additionally, the petitioner failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the correct municipal entity.
- Hoefler v Shoreham-Wading Riv. Cent. Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 05384
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the defendant school district established its prima facie entitlement to dismissal by demonstrating the air conditioning unit was an open and obvious condition that was not inherently dangerous. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the property owner’s duty to warn or protect.
- Fezza v Legal Sea Foods, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05382
The court affirmed the dismissal of cross-claims against the contractor, holding that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the Espinal exceptions. The contractor’s expert evidence was deemed insufficient to establish that its repair work launched an instrument of harm or created the dangerous condition.
- I.M. v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05371
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the City and Empress Ambulance Service, finding that issues of fact remained regarding whether the EMTs owed a special duty and whether their actions were discretionary or ministerial under REMAC protocols. The court modified the lower court’s order to dismiss the cause of action for negligent hiring, training, and retention against the City due to the plaintiffs’ failure to oppose that specific branch of the motion.
Week ending September 19, 2026
Browse the week ending September 19, 2026
- 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.
- Beauchamp v New York City Tr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05364
The court modified the jury verdict to reduce future medical expenses to the amount supported by expert testimony and remanded for a new trial on pain and suffering and loss of services unless plaintiffs stipulated to reduced amounts. The court found the original awards excessive but noted that the reduced total constitutes reasonable compensation for the plaintiff’s extraordinary injuries.
- Wright v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05352
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the third-party complaint against the City of New York because the property owners failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the City’s affirmative acts of negligence. The court determined that the City’s failure to respond to service requests for a fire hydrant constituted nonfeasance, not an affirmative act of negligence, and thus did not shift liability from the property owners.
- Tsintsadze v Preziotti2026 NY Slip Op 05341
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the personal injury complaint because the defendants established that the plaintiff’s spinal injuries were degenerative and not caused by the accident. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact because his experts did not address the defendants’ radiologist’s findings in a nonconclusory manner.
- Torres v Frank & Sal, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05340
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the grocery store did not owe a duty to the plaintiff because it lacked the authority to control the third-party tortfeasor after he left the premises and had no special relationship with the plaintiff.
- Steuber v LeBlanc2026 NY Slip Op 05339
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Consequently, the summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed and the complaint was reinstated against the defendants.
- 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.
- Ramirez v Red Cloud Trucking, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05332
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting summary judgment on liability because the defendant driver’s affidavit raised triable issues of fact. The defendant provided a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision by alleging the plaintiff driver made a sudden stop without reason.
- Olivares v Andacky2026 NY Slip Op 05321
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because the defendant established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff was negligent for driving across multiple lanes of traffic and that the defendant had only seconds to react, negating any comparative negligence.
- Macri v Fluor Enters., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05301
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to Certa Pro, IBM, and Fluor Enterprises, finding that the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the defendants negligently created a dangerous condition by installing two visually identical walking surfaces without a warning. The court held that while the defendants established they did not know the flooring was slippery, the plaintiff’s expert evidence regarding improper application and lack of visual distinction precluded summary judgment.
- Lawless v LIDL US, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05297
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s personal injury claim, finding that the defendants established the hazardous condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the visibility and danger of the wooden pallet.
- Khodjaeva v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05295
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of liability in a chain-collision accident by demonstrating their vehicle was stopped when struck from behind. The court held that the defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision or evidence supporting their affirmative defenses of comparative negligence and assumption of risk.
- Jones v New York City Hous. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05293
The court reversed the dismissal of the complaint because the defendant failed to reschedule the oral examination after the plaintiff’s counsel postponed it indefinitely. Under General Municipal Law § 50-h, the municipality has an obligation to reschedule the examination for the earliest possible date if it is postponed beyond the ninety-day period.
- Jacobs v March Constr./Consulting2026 NY Slip Op 05292
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) claims because the defendants raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of her injuries. The court found that evidence of a marked, secured cover and instructions not to touch construction material were sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s prima facie showing of liability.
- Hassane v Elbakry2026 NY Slip Op 05289
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant because the defendant failed to meet the prima facie burden of showing the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on liability on the merits, finding that triable issues of fact remained regarding the cause of the accident and the applicability of the emergency doctrine.
- J. H., etc., et al., appellants, v South Country Central School District, et al., respondents.2026 NY Slip Op 05288
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint, holding that the school district provided adequate supervision and that the injury was not proximately caused by any lack of supervision. The court determined that the accident occurred in such a short span of time that even intense supervision could not have prevented it.
- 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.
- Grannum v Tanais’s Deli Grocery Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 05285
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because she failed to establish prima facie that the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk defect. The expert’s reliance on Google Maps images without visiting the site was deemed insufficient to demonstrate constructive notice.
- Ford v Montclair Care Ctr., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05284
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss, granting the defendants’ motion under CPLR 3211(a). The court held that the defendants were immune from liability under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because they provided health care services in good faith in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
- Fata v Garnet Health Med. Ctr.2026 NY Slip Op 05282
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the alleged conduct did not meet the legal standard for extreme and outrageous behavior. The court determined that the conduct was not so egregious as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized community.
- Estate of Vivien Boninti, etc., appellant, v South Shore Rehabilitation, LLC, etc., respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05281
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, holding that the defendant failed to conclusively establish that the conditions for immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act were satisfied. The court determined that the defendant’s submissions, which lacked evidence regarding the specific treatment of the decedent, were insufficient to warrant dismissal on the law.
- Cruz v 2742 Fulton, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05275
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendant because it failed to establish ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property. The defendant demonstrated that it did not own the abutting property and did not cause the sidewalk defect through its construction activities.
- Branch v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05269
The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the abutting property owners because they had no duty to maintain the city-owned tree well. The defendants successfully demonstrated they did not create the dangerous condition, negligently repair the area, or cause the condition through special use.
- Bautista v Supervalu, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05266
The court affirmed the dismissal of the personal injury action, finding that the defendants established the hazardous condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as their expert’s opposition was deemed speculative and conclusory.
- Batista v Allerton Ave Estates, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05265
The defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because they did not eliminate triable issues of fact regarding whether the icy condition resulted from a prior storm or if the defendants had constructive notice of the pre-existing condition. Consequently, the lower court’s order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed.
- Alam v Uber Tech., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05260
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident. Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to explain any gap in treatment, and triable issues of fact remained regarding serious injury.
- Abdelrahman v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05259
The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint against all defendants because they established that no dangerous condition existed. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and his expert’s affidavit was deemed speculative and insufficient to defeat the motion.
Week ending September 12, 2026
Browse the week ending September 12, 2026
- Hoeben v FCA US LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05238
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment to the vehicle and component manufacturers, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding design defects, failure to warn, and implied warranty. The court determined that expert testimony and evidence of alternative designs and internal research created sufficient doubt about the safety and feasibility of the defendants’ products.
Week ending September 5, 2026
Browse the week ending September 5, 2026
- 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.
- Simon v Plainview Ave. Assoc.2026 NY Slip Op 05205
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff’s testimony raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the forklift was an open and obvious hazard. The court determined that the forklift’s location in the aisle, which prevented the plaintiff from positioning his cart, created a potentially inherently dangerous condition.
- Pitt v Rosenblatt2026 NY Slip Op 05200
The court affirmed the denial of judgment as a matter of law but reversed the denial of a motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The jury’s answers were irreconcilably inconsistent because they found no sudden medical emergency occurred while simultaneously finding the driver was not negligent.
- Lynch v Partelow2026 NY Slip Op 05177
The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the defendant established prima facie that the decedent’s negligent operation was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion.
- Digangi v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05162
The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the three-foot fall did not present a significant elevation-related risk, and modified the order to dismiss the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on specific Industrial Code provisions and OSHA regulations. The court denied summary judgment on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding the defendants’ notice of the icy condition.
- Cox v Cove 5, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05160
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the tenant, Dublin Deck, Inc., as it established it did not own, occupy, or control the parking lot. However, the court reversed the dismissal against the property owners, Cove 5, LLC, and Leeward 5, Inc., because they failed to establish that the railroad tie was an open and obvious condition that was not inherently dangerous.
- Carey v State of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05157
The State of New York has no duty to ensure the safety of areas of a roadway that are not intersections or designated crosswalks where pedestrian presence is not foreseeable. Consequently, the Court of Claims properly granted summary judgment dismissing the claimant’s personal injury claim.
Week ending July 25, 2026
Browse the week ending July 25, 2026
- Saraceno v Mazikowski2026 NY Slip Op 04695
The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, holding that the defendant was immune from liability under General Obligations Law § 9-103 because the plaintiff was engaged in hunting or sufficiently related activity. Additionally, the court found that the defendant met its burden under ordinary premises liability principles by showing the decedent did not create the dangerous condition or have notice of it.
- Bushley v New York State Thruway Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 04686
The court held that the reckless disregard standard of care under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) did not apply because the snowplow driver was traveling between parts of his route on a road he was not responsible for plowing. Consequently, the driver was found negligent for making an illegal right turn on red, and judgment on liability was granted in favor of the claimant.
- Brennan v Kandon, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 04685
The court modified the lower court’s order to reinstate the plaintiff’s claim that defendants failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, as defendants failed to establish they did not create the dangerous condition. However, the dismissal of the claim that defendants were negligent in failing to warn of the dangerous condition was affirmed.
- Sterk v State of New York2026 NY Slip Op 04673
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for both parties, finding that while claimants failed to establish a dangerous condition as a matter of law based on design standards, defendants failed to establish the absence of a dangerous condition due to triable issues regarding the bollard’s concealment by other bicyclists.
- Kessler v Carr2026 NY Slip Op 04672
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury, finding that conflicting expert opinions regarding causation and the nature of the cervical spine injury raised triable issues of fact. The majority determined that the plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden because her own submissions included evidence that contradicted her expert’s opinion on the existence of herniated discs and the causal link to the accident.
- Fegley v Raymond Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 04659
The court modified the lower court’s order to reinstate design defect claims regarding the absence of a rear guard, finding that defendants failed to prove the buyer was actually aware of the optional safety feature. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on steering mechanism claims because defendants raised that argument for the first time in their reply papers.
- Letersky v Militello Farms, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 04647
The court held that Labor Law § 240(1) applies to a worker’s fall into an excavated hole created for the work being performed, rejecting the argument that such accidents are categorically excluded. Additionally, the court found that mud inherent to the work site does not constitute a ‘foreign substance’ under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d), but triable issues of fact remained regarding the applicability of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b).
- Murphy v City Mini Stor. LLC2026 NY Slip Op 04622
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, holding that the defendant met its prima facie burden under the storm in progress doctrine by establishing that a storm was ongoing at the time of the accident. The majority determined that light snowfall and the presence of footprints were sufficient to show the storm was in progress, despite the dissent’s argument that the accumulation was merely negligible.
- Doe v Grasso2026 NY Slip Op 04612
The court affirmed the judgment regarding pain and suffering and lost earnings but set aside the verdict for past and future medical expenses, finding the future award based on uninformed speculation. A new trial on medical expenses was granted unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce past medical expenses to the proven amount and future medical expenses to zero.
- O’Grady v Auburn Enlarged City Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 04608
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding that the jury’s verdict was logically possible and supported by the evidence, as the defendants’ negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s procedural arguments regarding trial bifurcation, voir dire time limits, and jury instructions.
- Bray v Mullins2026 NY Slip Op 04607
The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the employer was not vicariously liable for the employee’s intentional torts because the acts were not within the scope of employment. Additionally, the court found no liability for false arrest because the defendant merely reported the incident to police without actively inducing the prosecution.
- Newton v Vancheri2026 NY Slip Op 04603
The court held that the two-day lapse between the theft and the accident did not legally extinguish the claim under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a). However, the claim under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 was dismissed because the plaintiff’s concession that the vehicle was stolen rebutted the presumption of owner consent.
- O’Hare v Eddo2026 NY Slip Op 04592
The Graves Amendment does not preempt state vicarious liability claims against a car dealership that provides a courtesy vehicle free of charge to a customer. Because the dealership did not receive payment for the use of the vehicle, it did not ‘rent’ the vehicle within the ordinary meaning of the federal statute.
- Koff v Lawson2026 NY Slip Op 04582
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that she was not negligent or that her negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. The court found that the defendant’s own evidence raised triable issues of fact regarding whether she could have seen the plaintiff and failed to exercise due care.
- 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
- Jovanovic v Falsons Realty Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 51305[U]
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, granting the out-of-possession landlord’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The landlord owed no duty to repair the conveyor belt or basement floor as its contractual obligations were limited to keeping the premises leak-free, and the plaintiffs failed to prove the cause of the accident beyond speculation.
Week ending April 25, 2026
Browse the week ending April 25, 2026
- Thrash v Vignier90 Misc 3d 384
The court granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff, holding that the death of the defendant driver does not alter the legal standards for opposing summary judgment or create a triable issue of fact. The defendant failed to rebut the inference of negligence arising from a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle by providing a nonnegligent explanation.
Week ending February 28, 2026
Browse the week ending February 28, 2026
- Frasier v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.252 AD3d 154
The court reversed the lower court’s stay and referral to the Public Service Commission, holding that the primary jurisdiction doctrine did not apply because the claims were common-law torts requiring judicial determination of duty and causation. The PSC’s regulatory standards set only a minimum safety floor and do not dispositive the specific duty of care regarding stray voltage’s impact on cattle.
Week ending January 24, 2026
Browse the week ending January 24, 2026
- Prete v JJ Hoyt LLC251 AD3d 162
The court held that an abutting owner’s liability under the ‘special use’ exception is limited to defects caused by or arising from that specific special use, such as using a sidewalk as a driveway. Summary judgment was reversed because the defendant failed to establish that vehicular traffic did not cause the defect, leaving a factual issue for the jury.
Also decided
- Soo Kew Ong v FirstService Residential N.Y., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 06447 November 4, 2026
- Odekirk v Fulton Commons Care Ctr., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 06446 November 4, 2026
- Huerta v Quickdropper, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 06421 November 4, 2026
- Adger v Klein 2026 NY Slip Op 06402 November 4, 2026
- Wilson v Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream 2026 NY Slip Op 06165 October 21, 2026
- Beale v K Mart Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 05926 October 14, 2026
- Doren v Allstar Sec. & Consulting, Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05720 October 6, 2026
- Lisa C. v Troser Mgt., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05655 October 2, 2026
- Bain v Urban League of Rochester N.Y., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05646 October 2, 2026
- Herrera v Almonte-Hernandez 2026 NY Slip Op 05521 September 30, 2026
- Almonte v Raymours Furniture Co., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05509 September 30, 2026
- Whelan v Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth. 2026 NY Slip Op 04625 July 24, 2026
- Whelan v Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth. 2026 NY Slip Op 04624 July 24, 2026
- Gianna T. D. v 64 W. Chippewa Assoc. LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 04568 July 24, 2026
- GILG v MANZELLA 89 Misc 3d 1086 March 2, 2026
- DEITRICH v BINGHAMTON LLC 252 AD3d 43 February 5, 2026