New York Law Watch
Appellate Division, First Department: January to June 2026
For Appellate Division, First Department, January to June 2026, Law Watch lists 15 indexable decisions dated January 13, 2026 to March 31, 2026 across 7 decision weeks.
23 decision records: 15 meet the substance floor; 8 records are held from search listings.
Week ending April 4, 2026
Browse the week ending April 4, 2026
- Matter of Meyerowitz252 AD3d 176
The court accepted the respondent’s voluntary resignation from the bar, effectively disbarbing him, because his affidavit conformed to disciplinary rules and he had made full restitution to his clients. The court noted that accepting such resignations is consistent with prior precedent when restitution has been made.
- Matter of McMurdo252 AD3d 172
The court granted the joint motion for discipline by consent and suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year, effective nunc pro tunc to September 20, 2024. The court found that a one-year suspension was appropriate given respondent’s violations of professional conduct rules related to issuing false opinion letters and his voluntary cessation of practice.
Week ending March 14, 2026
Browse the week ending March 14, 2026
- Matter of Hurckes252 AD3d 97
The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline, imposing an immediate interim suspension on respondent based on his emergency suspension in Florida. The court found that respondent’s misconduct, including neglect of client matters and false advertising, constituted professional misconduct in New York and that no defenses to reciprocal discipline applied.
- Matter of Chilliest252 AD3d 80
The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for interim suspension based on evidence of misappropriated escrow funds and the respondent’s failure to cooperate with the investigation. Although the court found insufficient evidence of venal intent for intentional conversion, the respondent’s non-cooperation and financial misconduct warranted immediate suspension.
Week ending March 7, 2026
Browse the week ending March 7, 2026
- Matter of Ponder252 AD3d 74
The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline, disbaring respondent Brian Lamar Ponder from the practice of law in New York. The court found that respondent’s misconduct in Oklahoma, including pursuing frivolous claims and failing to appear for hearings, constituted violations of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct and warranted disbarment.
- Matter of Jeang252 AD3d 67
The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline, disbarbing the respondent from the practice of law in New York. This decision was based on her disbarment in California for willfully misappropriating over $4 million in escrow funds and submitting falsified evidence to the court.
- Matter of Cardillo252 AD3d 61
The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for interim suspension because bank records and testimony provided uncontroverted evidence that the respondent converted client settlement funds belonging to A.C. and replenished the shortfall using funds from another client. The court declined to suspend based on the disputed $4.7 million transaction with X.Z. at this stage, as those issues required credibility assessments and contract interpretation reserved for a full disciplinary hearing.
- Matter of Dunphy252 AD3d 32
The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline, imposing a public censure on the respondent for his failure to cooperate with Connecticut disciplinary authorities. The court determined that the respondent’s misconduct in Connecticut also violated New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct and that a public censure was commensurate with the reprimand issued in the foreign jurisdiction.
- Matter of Cantor252 AD3d 27
The court granted the parties’ joint motion for discipline by consent, imposing an 18-month suspension on the respondent for unauthorized practice of law while suspended. The suspension was made effective nunc pro tunc to October 14, 2024, the date the respondent ceased practicing.
Week ending February 14, 2026
Browse the week ending February 14, 2026
- People v Croney251 AD3d 168
The court held that a defendant has a right to appeal a prehearing dismissal of a DVSJA resentencing application under CPL 440.47. However, the court affirmed the dismissal because the defendant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to establish a temporal nexus between the domestic abuse and the underlying offense.
- Matter of Shen251 AD3d 65
The court sustained charges of commingling client funds, bookkeeping failures, and false statements, while dismissing a charge regarding failure to consult due to lack of actual knowledge. The court imposed a public censure, finding the misconduct nonvenal and mitigated by the attorney’s self-reporting and lack of client harm.
Week ending February 7, 2026
Browse the week ending February 7, 2026
- Szczesiak v ERY Tenant LLC251 AD3d 131
The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240(1) because the defective ladder failed to provide proper protection against gravity-related risks. The electric shock was not the proximate cause of the fall, as the ladder moved and wobbled independently of the shock’s force.
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.
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.
- People v Vilella251 AD3d 109
The court held that the trial court satisfied the meaningful notice requirements of CPL 310.30 by providing counsel with notice of the actual specific contents of the jury notes, even though the notes were read almost verbatim rather than strictly verbatim. Consequently, the court found no mode of proceedings error and affirmed the conviction for attempted murder and assault.
Also decided
- Matter of Spolin 252 AD3d 110 March 24, 2026
- Matter of Patouris 252 AD3d 107 March 24, 2026
- Matter of Lubenesky 252 AD3d 102 March 24, 2026
- HSBC Bank v Nicholas 252 AD3d 201 March 17, 2026
- Matter of Henderson 252 AD3d 39 March 5, 2026
- Matter of Bland 252 AD3d 23 March 5, 2026
- Matter of Zareh 251 AD3d 73 February 10, 2026
- FUNTI v ANDREWS 251 AD3d 44 January 6, 2026