New York Law Watch
Appellate Division, Second Department: quarter 4 of 2026
For Appellate Division, Second Department, quarter 4 of 2026, Law Watch lists 330 indexable decisions dated October 2, 2026 to November 4, 2026 across 6 decision weeks.
401 decision records: 330 meet the substance floor; 71 records are held from search listings.
Week ending November 7, 2026
Browse the week ending November 7, 2026
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Kogan2026 NY Slip Op 06485
The court held that the plaintiff was estopped from arguing that the mortgage debt was not validly accelerated by a prior 2007 action because that action was dismissed for failure to comply with a court order, not for lack of standing. Consequently, the 2015 foreclosure action was time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations.
- 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.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Walker2026 NY Slip Op 06482
The plaintiff failed to establish standing or strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, requiring the denial of its motion for summary judgment. However, the defendants failed to meet their burden on cross-motion to dismiss the complaint based on those same grounds.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Rahman2026 NY Slip Op 06481
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred because the statute of limitations began running when the plaintiff accelerated the debt in a prior action. The court held that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act prohibits a noteholder from unilaterally revoking a prior election to accelerate the debt.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Baidoo2026 NY Slip Op 06480
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment and foreclosure judgment because she failed to offer a reasonable excuse for her default in opposing the plaintiff’s motions. Consequently, the defendant was precluded from asserting defenses based on lack of standing or failure to comply with RPAPL 1304.
- Trautmann v Stellar 341, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06479
The court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated causes of action for adverse possession and the doctrine of practical location. The court determined that the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants was insufficient to utterly refute the plaintiffs’ factual allegations.
- Thomas J. McCarthy Real Estate, Inc. v Herlin2026 NY Slip Op 06478
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the broker’s claim for a commission because the plaintiffs failed to establish that they produced a buyer who was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property. The court determined that the evidence demonstrated the purchasers did not meet the contractual requirements for the commission to be earned.
- Sibrizzi v Strickland2026 NY Slip Op 06477
The court affirmed the dismissal of the medical malpractice complaint because the plaintiff’s expert opinion lacked probative value and failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Additionally, the court directed a show cause proceeding regarding sanctions against the plaintiff’s counsel for misrepresenting citations in their brief.
- 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.
- 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.
- People v County of Nassau2026 NY Slip Op 06472
The local law prohibiting the use of county park property for sporting events that allow biological males to compete on teams designated for females is invalid as preempted by the New York State Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law. The court held that the law constitutes discrimination based on gender identity or expression, which is expressly prohibited by state law.
- People v Dreyer2026 NY Slip Op 06471
The County Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The court affirmed the assessment of points for risk factors 5 and 7, finding that the People established the victims’ ages and the nature of the relationship by clear and convincing evidence.
- People v Tietje2026 NY Slip Op 06467
The appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, finding that the defendant’s challenges to the ignition interlock device condition and the surcharge were unpreserved for review and without merit. The court also determined that the defendant’s remaining contention was academic.
- People v Taylor2026 NY Slip Op 06466
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a competency examination and a day-before request for an adjournment based on religious beliefs. The court further affirmed the convictions for attempted robbery, finding the evidence legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence.
- People v Sasso2026 NY Slip Op 06464
The court affirmed the convictions but modified the judgment to make all sentences run concurrently, finding the original consecutive sentence excessive. The court declined to review mixed claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, directing the defendant to pursue them in a CPL 440.10 proceeding.
- People v Santana2026 NY Slip Op 06463
The court granted the motion of assigned counsel to withdraw because the submitted Anders brief was deficient for failing to analyze potential appellate issues with reference to legal authority. Consequently, the court assigned new counsel to represent the appellant and directed them to file a brief within 90 days.
- People v Reyes-Fuentes2026 NY Slip Op 06462
The court affirmed the judgments, holding that the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal precluded review of sentence excessiveness and factual sufficiency challenges. However, the court reviewed the claim that factual insufficiency rendered the pleas involuntary, finding the pleas were voluntary and intelligent because the defendant admitted to each element of the charged crimes.
- People v Portillo2026 NY Slip Op 06460
The judgment of conviction for rape in the first degree and other sexual offenses is affirmed because the evidence was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court also held that the trial court properly limited cross-examination regarding a speculative motive to fabricate and that the sentence was not excessive.
- People v Martin2026 NY Slip Op 06456
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the suppression of identification evidence was properly denied because the officer’s identification was confirmatory, and the search warrant was supported by probable cause. Additionally, the court ruled that a guilty plea precludes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury.
- People v Lang2026 NY Slip Op 06455
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle provided sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants under the law existing in 2020. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding unsubstantiated allegations of witness misconduct.
- People v Harkless2026 NY Slip Op 06452
The court vacated the duration of orders of protection because they exceeded the statutory maximum and the defendant could not practically object due to the court’s failure to announce the duration. The court also waived mandatory surcharges and fees in the interest of justice with the People’s consent.
- People v Abbosov2026 NY Slip Op 06450
The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the trial court properly denied a motion for a mistrial regarding interpreter accuracy and appropriately limited cross-examination on collateral issues. Additionally, the court determined that the defendant’s right to be present was not violated because the excluded colloquy involved only questions of law or procedure.
- 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.
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Greenfeld2026 NY Slip Op 06445
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred, holding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) retroactively applied to preclude the plaintiff from using the CPLR 205(a) savings provision. The court determined that a dismissal under CPLR 3215(c) constitutes neglect to prosecute under FAPA, thereby barring the plaintiff from relying on the six-month savings provision to revive the claim.
- Matter of Puccio v Department of Educ. of City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06444
The petitioner did not acquire tenure by estoppel because his employment was terminated within the four-year probationary period, as summer employment does not extend the calendar year calculation. The Department of Education’s decision to terminate the petitioner was not arbitrary and capricious, and the petitioner failed to prove the termination was done in bad faith or for illegal reasons.
- Matter of Polizzotto & Polizzotto, LLC v Kohn2026 NY Slip Op 06443
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s apportionment of attorney’s fees, finding that the outgoing attorney’s contributions were proportionally and substantively greater than the current attorney’s. The court awarded the outgoing attorney 83⅓% of the net contingency fee and the current attorney 16⅔%.
- Matter of O’Brien v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06442
The court reversed the lower court’s judgment and dismissed the proceeding because the petitioners lacked standing, as they failed to demonstrate a concrete injury-in-fact from the publication of the supplemental roll or the receipt of initial determination notices. The court held that generalized confusion, privacy concerns, and the burden of complying with statutory exemption procedures do not constitute cognizable harm sufficient to confer standing.
- Matter of NBM Dev., LLC v Tax Commn. of City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06441
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to consolidate seven related tax certiorari proceedings and grant summary judgment to the petitioner. The property was reclassified from class four commercial to class one residential because it was a vacant lot zoned R3-2, entitling the petitioner to reduced assessments and tax refunds.
- Matter of Licatesi Law Group, LLP v Bachu, Bedesi & Nguyen2026 NY Slip Op 06440
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s award of 100% of the net contingency fee to the original law firm because it established that the settlement was achieved solely through its efforts. The subsequent law firm failed to provide time records or other evidence to demonstrate their contribution to the outcome.
- Matter of Hasko v Kikalenios2026 NY Slip Op 06439
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s dismissal of the father’s petition to modify custody, finding that his allegations of a change in circumstances warranted a full hearing. The court determined that the father made the requisite threshold evidentiary showing to require a plenary hearing on whether the existing custody arrangement continued to serve the child’s best interests.
- Matter of Harris2026 NY Slip Op 06438
The court imposed reciprocal disbarment on the respondent based on his consent to disbarment in New Jersey for misappropriating client funds and other misconduct. The court found that the respondent’s failure to respond to the order to show cause warranted immediate disbarment and striking his name from the roll of attorneys.
- Matter of DePasquale v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.2026 NY Slip Op 06437
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s judgment annulling the Board of Trustees’ denial of World Trade Center disability retirement benefits. The court found that the Medical Board’s determination was arbitrary and capricious because it lacked a rational basis and failed to rebut the statutory presumption of causation.
- Matter of Benjamin Beechwood Ocean Way, LLC v Niblack2026 NY Slip Op 06436
The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that the Department of Finance committed an error of law by failing to classify a vacant lot zoned residential in Queens as tax class one. The court determined that such property must be classified as tax class one regardless of any commercial overlay.
- Matter of Benjamin Beechwood Ocean Way, LLC v Niblack2026 NY Slip Op 06435
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to annul the Department of Finance’s determinations, holding that the failure to classify vacant residentially zoned land in Queens as tax class one was an error of law. The court determined that such property must be classified as tax class one regardless of any commercial overlay.
- Matter of Arcila v Town of N. Hempstead2026 NY Slip Op 06434
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of the petition, granting the request to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The court found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the one-day delay and that the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts, failing to show substantial prejudice.
- Matter of 99 Wash. LD Holdings, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Suffern2026 NY Slip Op 06433
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition as time-barred because the proceeding was commenced more than 30 days after the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision was filed with the village clerk. The court held that the 30-day statute of limitations under Village Law § 7-712-c(1) applied, rendering the petition untimely.
- Matter of 245 Sullivan Ave, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal2026 NY Slip Op 06432
The court affirmed the denial of the petition, finding that DHCR’s determination that the building was not substantially rehabilitated was rationally based and not arbitrary. The court also held that the agency did not improperly deviate from precedent and that the petitioner received due process.
- Matter of 23-25 Astoria Blvd, LLC v Niblack2026 NY Slip Op 06431
The Department of Finance committed an error of law by failing to classify a vacant lot in Queens zoned residential as tax class one. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to annul the denial and direct reclassification, noting that commercial overlays do not prevent such classification outside Manhattan.
- MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v Mazza2026 NY Slip Op 06430
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred because the debt was accelerated by a prior action that was dismissed for neglect, thereby precluding the plaintiff from using the savings provision of CPLR 205-a under the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act. The court further held that the retroactive application of FAPA to this action was constitutional and did not violate due process or contract clauses.
- Manzo v Scanlon2026 NY Slip Op 06428
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact regarding the corporation’s capacity through evidence of reinstatement and that the law of the case doctrine did not bar the individual plaintiff’s claim. The matter was remitted for a new determination of the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
- Long Is. Roller Rebels v County of Nassau2026 NY Slip Op 06427
The local law prohibiting the use of county park property for sporting events that allow biological males to compete in women’s categories is invalid because it is preempted by the New York State Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law § 40-c. The court held that the law discriminates based on gender identity or expression, which is expressly prohibited for places of public accommodation.
- Levy v Jurak2026 NY Slip Op 06426
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice claim against the defendants. The court found that the defendants met their prima facie burden by showing no departure from the standard of care, while the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact because their expert’s opinion was speculative and conclusory.
- 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.
- Landry v K&A Engg. Consulting, P.C.2026 NY Slip Op 06424
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s retaliation claims under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740. The court found that the defendants established that the termination was based on the plaintiff’s failure to perform his duties rather than protected activity.
- Irish v Tropical Emerald, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06423
The plaintiff is not collaterally estopped from asserting claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL based on a prior federal court’s dismissal of ADA claims because the state laws require independent analysis under different legal thresholds. The federal court’s determination that barrier removal was not ‘readily achievable’ under the ADA does not preclude the plaintiff from arguing that such removal would not cause ‘undue hardship’ under the NYCHRL or NYSHRL.
- 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.
- Dranovsky v Bukh2026 NY Slip Op 06415
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but reversed the denial on the fraud claim. The fraud claim was dismissed because it was based on the same allegations as the breach of contract claim.
- Desrosiers v U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.2026 NY Slip Op 06414
The court affirmed the summary judgment cancelling the mortgage, holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the prior foreclosure action was commenced, regardless of the plaintiff’s standing. The defendants were estopped from arguing the debt was not validly accelerated because the prior action was not dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination of invalid acceleration.
- 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.
- 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.
- Catalano v Catalano2026 NY Slip Op 06410
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s imposition of a constructive trust on real property, finding that the plaintiff established the requisite elements by clear and convincing evidence. The court determined that the defendants’ refusal to reconvey title after an oral promise constituted unjust enrichment, and that the trust was not barred by the statute of frauds.
- Blue Castle (Cayman), Ltd. v Dacosta2026 NY Slip Op 06409
The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment, holding that New York’s statute of limitations does not apply to mortgage foreclosure actions where the note was previously held by a federal agency like GNMA. As an assignee of a federal agency, the plaintiff was immune from state limitations periods, thereby defeating the defendants’ affirmative defense that the action was time-barred.
- 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.
- 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.
- Atlantic Adult Day Care Ctr., Inc. v Temple Beth El of Manhattan Beach2026 NY Slip Op 06406
The Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the defendant on its counterclaim for ejectment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, specific enforcement, breach of the implied covenant, and declaratory relief. The court determined that the defendant validly terminated the lease due to the plaintiffs’ failure to pay rent, rendering the plaintiffs’ remaining claims duplicative or unnecessary.
- 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).
- 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.
Week ending October 31, 2026
Browse the week ending October 31, 2026
- 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.
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, etc., respondent, v Eric Leder, etc., appellant, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06349
The inclusion of relevant bankruptcy rights information in the same envelope as the RPAPL 1304 notice did not violate the separate envelope requirement. Additionally, the loan servicer was properly authorized to send the required notices under a limited power of attorney.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Iqbal2026 NY Slip Op 06344
The plaintiff failed to establish standing for summary judgment because it did not submit admissible evidence proving it held the note at the time the action was commenced. The court affirmed the denial of the motion, noting that the plaintiff’s reliance on a servicer’s affidavit without personal knowledge or supporting records constituted inadmissible hearsay.
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Ford2026 NY Slip Op 06343
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred, determining that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) constituted a change in the law that warranted reconsideration of the statute of limitations. Under FAPA, the voluntary discontinuance of prior foreclosure actions did not revive or reset the limitations period for the current action.
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Diakhate2026 NY Slip Op 06342
The court affirmed the judgment of foreclosure and sale, holding that the plaintiff established standing by attaching the properly endorsed note to the complaint and that the defendant, as the estate’s administrator rather than the borrower, was not entitled to the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304. Additionally, the court found that the referee’s report was properly confirmed because the findings were substantially supported by the record and the plaintiff’s loan servicer provided a proper foundation for the admission of business records.
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Alexander2026 NY Slip Op 06341
The court reversed the judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff failed to take proceedings toward entry of a default judgment within one year of the defendant’s default. The plaintiff’s excuses for the delay were deemed conclusory and unsubstantiated, requiring dismissal of the complaint against the defendant as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c).
- 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.
- Schmeisser v 685 First Realty Co., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06339
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because he failed to establish a prima facie case that the defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) and (e)(1). The plaintiff’s own deposition testimony raised triable issues of fact regarding the existence of a slippery condition and the duration of the tripping hazard.
- 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).
- Rajpaulsingh v Hidden Pond at Old Westbury, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06337
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because the defendant failed to establish it lacked the authority to supervise or control the work. However, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the construction manager acted as an agent of the owner or general contractor.
- People v Lopez2026 NY Slip Op 06336
The appellate court affirmed the defendant’s designation as a level two sex offender, finding that his argument for a downward departure was unpreserved because he did not request it at the hearing. Additionally, the court determined that the defendant failed to establish that a downward departure was warranted based on the risk assessment points.
- People v Call2026 NY Slip Op 06335
The Appellate Division reversed the defendant’s designation as a level three sex offender and designated him a level two sex offender because the People failed to prove aggravating circumstances warranting an upward departure. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s application for a downward departure, finding that the substantial age disparity between the parties warranted maintaining the presumptive risk level.
- People v Romero-Lopez2026 NY Slip Op 06331
The court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial court improperly precluded cross-examination of the complaining witness regarding her drug use and mental health diagnosis. The court found these errors were not harmless because the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming and the errors may have contributed to the conviction.
- People v Reyes2026 NY Slip Op 06330
The court affirmed the convictions for kidnapping, rape, and endangering the welfare of a child, finding that the defendant’s statements were not the product of custodial interrogation and that no Brady violation occurred. However, the court modified the sentence by reducing the kidnapping term and directing that all sentences run concurrently.
- People v Reed2026 NY Slip Op 06329
The Superior Court Information was jurisdictionally defective and a nullity because the defendant’s waiver of indictment occurred after a grand jury had already returned an indictment covering the same criminal transaction. Consequently, the conviction based on the defective information was reversed and the information was dismissed.
- People v Pichardo2026 NY Slip Op 06328
The court affirmed the conviction for second-degree murder and first-degree burglary, finding that the defendant’s statements were voluntarily made after a valid waiver of Miranda rights. The appellate court further determined that the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence, and that any error regarding a missing witness charge was harmless.
- People v Newton2026 NY Slip Op 06326
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, finding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on a database inquiry indicating stolen plates and probable cause to arrest based on the plain view observation of a gun. The court also held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that the lawfulness of the stop was not a question for them to decide.
- People v Matos-Colon2026 NY Slip Op 06322
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the trial court’s denial of a mistrial was harmless error because the curative instruction and overwhelming evidence of guilt negated any prejudice from the improperly played portion of a controlled call. Additionally, the court held that the defendant failed to preserve his sentencing arguments for appellate review.
- People v Irick2026 NY Slip Op 06321
The defendant’s challenge to his sentencing as a second felony offender was unpreserved for appellate review because he did not contest his status at the sentencing hearing. The court declined to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the unpreserved issue.
- People v Chocoj-Marroquin2026 NY Slip Op 06316
The appellate court affirmed the judgment despite finding that the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made due to the trial court’s failure to properly advise him of the attendant rights and the scope of the waiver. However, the court determined that the sentence imposed was not excessive, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence.
- People v Brown2026 NY Slip Op 06315
The court affirmed the judgment, finding the defendant’s claim regarding the voluntariness of her plea was unpreserved and without merit. Additionally, the court held that the delay in the appeal caused by counsel substitutions was not properly before the court on the appeal from the judgment.
- Newhouse v SSMG Realty, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06313
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment granting specific performance of a real property contract because the plaintiffs established they were ready, willing, and able to close. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the summary judgment motion.
- 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 Winter2026 NY Slip Op 06310
The court reversed the Surrogate’s Court’s order disqualifying the surviving spouse from receiving letters of administration, finding that the sister failed to meet her burden of proving abandonment. The court held that the evidence presented, consisting of unsigned and unsworn documents, was insufficient to establish disqualification under EPTL 5-1.2.
- Matter of United Realty Five, LLC v Niblack2026 NY Slip Op 06309
The Department of Finance committed an error of law by failing to classify a vacant lot in Queens zoned R6 as tax class one. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to annul the denial and direct reclassification, noting that such land is properly class one regardless of any commercial overlay.
- 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.
- Matter of Olatunji v Animashaun2026 NY Slip Op 06307
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order enforcing a Nigerian custody decree under the UCCJEA, determining that Nigeria retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. The court held that the mother’s wrongful removal of the children to New York did not establish New York as the children’s home state.
- Matter of Jessica L.M. (Deborah M.)2026 NY Slip Op 06306
A ward subject to a guardianship proceeding under SCPA article 17-A is constitutionally entitled to select counsel of their own choosing. The Surrogate’s Court erred in disqualifying the petitioner’s retained counsel and appointing new counsel because the record demonstrated the petitioner freely and independently retained her attorney.
- Matter of Fernando v Village of Garden City, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06305
The court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the hearing officer’s denial of the small claims assessment review had a rational basis. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of presenting sufficient evidence of excessive assessment, and the remaining contention was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
- Matter of Deutschmann v Deutschmann Partners, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06304
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order granting the petition to decree the dissolution of the limited partnerships. The court determined that the petitioners established that the agreed-upon conditions for judicial dissolution were met and that no triable issues of fact were raised.
- Matter of Deutschmann v Deutschmann Partners, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06303
The Supreme Court properly denied the motion to dismiss the petition for dissolution and appointment of a receiver because the appellants failed to conclusively establish that the LLC was validly admitted as a general partner. The evidence submitted was ambiguous and of disputed authenticity, failing to meet the strict standard for dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).
- Matter of D’Aleo v Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 06302
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the petition, finding that the hearing officer’s determination sustaining charges of misconduct and insubordination was rational and supported by evidence. The court held that the penalty of termination was not disproportionate to the offense and did not shock the sense of fairness.
- Matter of Congregation Radin Dev., Inc. v Town of Ramapo2026 NY Slip Op 06301
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner’s claims because the respondents established that the petitioner was not organized exclusively for exempt purposes and that pecuniary profit could inure to its members. Consequently, the petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for a real property tax exemption under RPTL 420-a.
- 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.
- Matter of 11-19 Foam Place Holdings, LLC v Niblack2026 NY Slip Op 06298
The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that the Department of Finance committed an error of law by failing to reclassify a vacant lot in Queens as tax class one. The parcel was properly classified as tax class one because it was zoned residential and located outside of Manhattan, regardless of any commercial overlay.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Magpantay v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 06292
The court granted summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that the failure to secure a falling object was a proximate cause of the injury. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) and § 200 claims due to triable issues of fact regarding the area’s exposure to falling objects and the defendants’ supervisory control.
- M. M. v Andriotis2026 NY Slip Op 06291
A resident physician acting under the supervision of an attending physician is not liable for medical malpractice if the supervising doctor’s directions did not greatly deviate from normal practice. The court affirmed summary judgment because the defendant demonstrated she was acting under supervision and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding her independent liability.
- 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.
- Killerlane v Meagher & Meagher, P.C.2026 NY Slip Op 06288
The court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that the amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of contract and violations of Labor Law article 6. The court further determined that the alleged oral agreement regarding referral fees was not barred by the statute of frauds.
- 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.
- HSBC Mtge. Corp. (USA) v Gewirtz2026 NY Slip Op 06286
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment by producing the note, mortgage, and admissible business records of default. The court also affirmed the striking of the defendant’s affirmative defense of lack of standing, as the plaintiff was the original lender in direct privity with the defendant.
- 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.
- 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.
- Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hollender2026 NY Slip Op 06283
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred, determining that the statute of limitations began running when the debt was first accelerated in 2009. The court held that unilateral de-acceleration letters failed to revive or reset the statute of limitations under CPLR 203 as amended by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act.
- 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.
- Callahan v Montefiore Med. Ctr.2026 NY Slip Op 06278
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s defamation claim, finding that the medical records produced pursuant to a subpoena in a custody proceeding were protected by an absolute privilege. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the negligence per se claim and the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to renew.
- 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.
- BH Sterling Realty, LLC v Longoria2026 NY Slip Op 06276
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against the LLC defendants, finding that the defendants failed to conclusively establish they were bona fide purchasers for value without actual or constructive knowledge of the unrecorded contract. The court held that the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the defendants’ knowledge of the prior interest in the property.
- Bank of America, N.A. v Noe2026 NY Slip Op 06275
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff established its standing by demonstrating physical possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. The court determined that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing.
- 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.
- 217-20 K&A, LLC v De Maio Props., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06272
The plaintiff was not eligible for a preliminary injunction because it sought injunctive relief after the expiration of the cure period. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits because obtaining prospective insurance could not retrospectively cure the default arising from the failure to continually maintain insurance coverage.
Week ending October 24, 2026
Browse the week ending October 24, 2026
- 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.
- VK Dental Group, Inc. v Tender Touch Physical Therapy, PLLC2026 NY Slip Op 06164
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff because the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff’s failure to perform its contractual obligations. Specifically, evidence showed the plaintiff failed to pay for 50% of utilities and had gas service disconnected, precluding summary judgment.
- 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.
- Spain v Williams2026 NY Slip Op 06160
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s defamation claims, finding that the alleged statements were nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole rather than provable facts. The court further upheld the award of costs and attorneys’ fees to the defendants under the anti-SLAPP statute because the action lacked a substantial basis in law.
- Sapp-Gooding v Kreindler & Kreindler, LLP2026 NY Slip Op 06159
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice claim, finding that the plaintiffs stated a cause of action and raised triable issues of fact regarding the continuous representation doctrine tolling the statute of limitations. Additionally, the court upheld the extension of time to serve the summons with notice in the interest of justice.
- 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.
- Perez v Premier Home Health Care Servs., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06153
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim because the defendant demonstrated it did not terminate the plaintiff during the employment term. The plaintiff remained employed and compensated through the end of the contract, rendering him ineligible for severance benefits.
- People v Sanchez2026 NY Slip Op 06152
The court affirmed the defendant’s level two sex offender designation and the denial of a downward departure, but modified the order to remove the sexually violent offender designation. The court found that the evidence sufficiently supported the risk assessment points and that the significant age disparity between the parties precluded a downward departure based on the victim’s lack of consent.
- People v Vincent2026 NY Slip Op 06149
The conviction was reversed and the case remitted for a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted a police detective’s opinion on surveillance video footage, which usurped the jury’s fact-finding role, and admitted Molineux testimony where the prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value. The court found these errors were not harmless given that the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming.
- People v Saylor2026 NY Slip Op 06148
The court held that the defendant’s appeal waiver was invalid because the oral colloquy mischaracterized the rights waived and occurred after the plea, rendering the written waiver insufficient to cure the defect. Despite the invalid waiver, the court affirmed the sentence as not excessive.
- People v Sanchez2026 NY Slip Op 06147
The court affirmed the conviction for grand larceny in the third degree, finding the evidence of property value legally sufficient. The court declined to review the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal, directing the defendant to pursue it via a CPL 440.10 proceeding.
- People v Sanchez2026 NY Slip Op 06146
The court vacated the convictions for robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree because the police lacked a lawful basis to remove a driver’s license from the defendant’s pocket during a protective frisk. The admission of this evidence was not harmless error, as it significantly corroborated the prosecution’s case and influenced the jury’s verdict.
- People v Piccinonno2026 NY Slip Op 06145
The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence to support the convictions for attempted assault and other charges. The court further held that the sentence was not excessive and that the disparity between the trial sentence and the plea offer did not establish vindictiveness.
- People v Malla2026 NY Slip Op 06142
The appellate court reduced the defendant’s seven-year prison sentence to three and one-half years because the lower court failed to adequately account for the four years of federal detention the defendant had already served. The court also determined that the defendant’s purported appeal waiver was invalid because the colloquy did not ensure he understood the distinction between the right to appeal and rights forfeited by a guilty plea.
- People v Knowlin2026 NY Slip Op 06140
The appellate court held that the defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because the court failed to confirm his understanding of the written waiver and provided an unclear oral explanation. Consequently, the court reviewed the excessive sentence claim and affirmed the sentence as not excessive.
- People v Jackson2026 NY Slip Op 06139
The court held that while the defendant’s pre-Miranda statements in the holding cell were voluntary and spontaneous, the subsequent videotaped interrogation should have been suppressed because the initial pre-Miranda questioning constituted interrogation without a sufficient break. However, the error in admitting the videotaped interrogation was deemed harmless because the remaining evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
- People v Hayes2026 NY Slip Op 06137
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal precluded review of the sentence’s excessiveness. Although the defendant’s challenge to the duration of the order of protection survived the waiver, the court declined to reach the issue because it was unpreserved and the defendant failed to seek relief from the issuing court first.
- People v Gouveia2026 NY Slip Op 06135
The court affirmed the conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, rejecting the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel provided meaningful representation despite failing to introduce certain evidence or request a lesser included offense charge. The court determined that the defendant’s claims were based on unsubstantiated affidavits and that the overwhelming evidence of guilt negated any prejudice.
- People v Daniel2026 NY Slip Op 06133
The appellate court held that the defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because it was not discussed as part of the plea bargain before the agreement was reached. Consequently, the court reviewed the excessive sentence claim and affirmed the sentence as not excessive.
- People v Chimborazo2026 NY Slip Op 06132
The judgments were reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different Justice because the trial court conducted excessive and prejudicial questioning of witnesses, creating the impression that it was an advocate for the People. The court reached this unpreserved claim in the exercise of its interest of justice jurisdiction.
- O’Hanlon v Renwick2026 NY Slip Op 06129
The court affirmed the interlocutory judgment directing specific performance because the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the parties’ agreement on material terms. Additionally, the plaintiff’s subsequent conduct did not constitute an anticipatory repudiation of the original contract.
- 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.
- New Residential Mtge., LLC v Tobing2026 NY Slip Op 06127
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to vacate a prior foreclosure judgment and dismiss the complaint as time-barred. The court determined that the statute of limitations began running when the original 2008 action commenced and was not reset by the voluntary discontinuance of that action.
- Matter of Wolf2026 NY Slip Op 06125
The court affirmed the Special Referee’s report sustaining all eight charges of professional misconduct, including misappropriation and commingling of funds, and ordered the respondent’s disbarment. The court determined that the respondent’s misuse of an escrow account to shield personal funds from creditors and his failure to fully acknowledge the severity of his misconduct warranted the most severe sanction.
- Matter of United Financial Casualty Company v Sharon A. Jack, et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06124
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition to stay arbitration because the petitioner failed to submit admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact regarding whether the accident was staged. The vague allegations in the disclaimer letter and the late submission of an investigator’s affidavit were insufficient to justify a framed-issue hearing.
- Matter of Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. v Town of Islip2026 NY Slip Op 06123
The court affirmed the tax exemption for the improved parcel housing the hotel and casino, finding it served the corporation’s purpose, but reversed the exemption for the ten vacant and undeveloped parcels. The appellate court determined that the evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the vacant land was used for the corporation’s specific corporate purpose.
- Matter of Mia A.P. (Dennis L.)2026 NY Slip Op 06121
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s finding of neglect and its denial of the mother’s motions to dismiss and vacate the finding. The court determined that the mother failed to establish good cause to vacate the neglect finding due to the serious nature of the conduct and her lack of insight into the harm caused to the child.
- Matter of Madaio v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.2026 NY Slip Op 06120
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision to annul the denial of accidental disability retirement benefits, finding that the Board of Trustees’ determination was arbitrary and capricious. The court held that there was no rational basis for concluding that slipping on grease was a risk inherent in the work or a reasonably anticipated event.
- Matter of Lindo v Ponte2026 NY Slip Op 06118
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 proceeding, finding that the Administrative Law Judge was properly designated in writing as required by Civil Service Law § 75(2). The court determined that the 2012 letter from the DOC Commissioner designating OATH judges was sufficient to establish the ALJ’s jurisdiction.
- 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.
- Matter of Erie Ins. Co. v Rodriguez2026 NY Slip Op 06115
Supplemental underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage is not triggered when the bodily injury liability limits of the tortfeasor’s insurance policies are greater than the third-party liability limits of the policy under which the claimant seeks SUM benefits. The court affirmed the stay of arbitration because the State Farm limits exceeded the Erie policy limits.
- Matter of Coven v Neptune Equities, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06114
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petition for judicial dissolution because the record failed to demonstrate that the dissension between the parties precluded the successful and profitable conduct of the corporation’s affairs. The court emphasized that the critical consideration is whether a deadlock exists, not who is at fault for the dissension.
- Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer2026 NY Slip Op 06113
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s award of $1,000 in attorneys’ fees because the Supreme Court failed to state the evidentiary basis for that specific determination. The matter was remitted for a new determination of the fee amount with a required statement of the evidentiary basis.
- Mortgage Assets Mgt., LLC v Robinson2026 NY Slip Op 06112
The court affirmed the dismissal of the mortgage foreclosure action as time-barred, holding that the statute of limitations began running upon the commencement of a prior action in 2014 and was not reset by its subsequent voluntary discontinuance. The court further granted the defendant’s counterclaim to cancel and discharge the mortgage under RPAPL 1501(4) due to the expiration of the limitations period.
- 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.
- 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.
- Latchana v Khubba2026 NY Slip Op 06106
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of mutual contempt motions, finding that neither party established by clear and convincing evidence that the other disobeyed court orders or caused prejudice. The court also upheld the grant of injunctive relief designating the defendant as the primary contact for the marital business and the denial of counsel fees due to a lack of evidence regarding financial conditions.
- Kibalya v Kibalya2026 NY Slip Op 06105
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the divorce action on the ground of forum non conveniens, finding that the trial court providently exercised its discretion. The court determined that the plaintiff’s residence in Australia, the defendant’s residence in Uganda, and the location of evidence and assets outside the United States militated against retaining the litigation in New York.
- Indian Harbor Insurance Company v SP & K Construction, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06104
The insurer failed to demonstrate entitlement to rescind the policy because it did not present documentation showing its underwriting practices would have prohibited issuance had the true facts been disclosed. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint but modified the judgment to award the defendants costs and attorneys’ fees.
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Mohassib2026 NY Slip Op 06103
The Appellate Division modified the judgment by denying the motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale because the affiant failed to establish a proper foundation for the business records relied upon. The court also granted the intervenor’s application to toll the accrual of interest for specific periods of unexplained delay in the prosecution of the action.
- 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 Taylor2026 NY Slip Op 06101
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal order because the subsequent foreclosure action was adjudicated time-barred. Under RPAPL 1301(4), this adjudication renders the earlier action barred by the statute of limitations as well.
- 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.
- Fareverse, LLC v Bourne2026 NY Slip Op 06099
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to toll the accrual of interest on the mortgage loan. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was responsible for unexplained delays or other wrongful conduct in the prosecution of the foreclosure action.
- Evaristo v GH 441 1st Fee, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06098
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The court held that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding statutory violation or the plaintiff’s sole proximate cause of injury.
- Duran v FLA Mtge. Capital 2, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06097
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action to cancel a mortgage, holding that the defendant, as an assignee of a federal agency, is entitled to immunity from New York’s statute of limitations. This immunity applies even if the defendant is an assignee of a commercial lender to which the federal agency had previously assigned the mortgage.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Connors v Kushner Cos., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06092
The court affirmed the lower court’s determination that units subject to a temporary student housing exemption resumed rent-stabilized status upon the exemption’s expiration, but could be lawfully deregulated under the then-applicable luxury deregulation provisions if the legal regulated rent met the statutory threshold. The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to establish that specific units were legally deregulated or substantially altered to qualify for a first stabilization rate.
- Conde-Rosado v Young Don Oh2026 NY Slip Op 06091
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice claim but reversed the dismissal of the lack of informed consent claim. The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment on informed consent because the plaintiff’s testimony contradicted the expert’s assertion that risks were discussed.
- City of New York v Arlene M. Tropp 2002 Revocable Trust2026 NY Slip Op 06090
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding zoning compliance and the applicability of reasonable accommodation claims. The court found that the defendants’ disability-based arguments did not address all alleged violations and failed to demonstrate the absence of material facts regarding selective enforcement.
- Cheemanlall v Toolsee2026 NY Slip Op 06089
The court held that the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the judgment for specific performance was barred by the doctrine of laches due to unreasonable delay. However, the court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the claim for the return of the down payment, finding that the defendant was not ready, willing, and able to perform.
- 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.
- Buitrago v Cascade 553, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06087
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The court found that while the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the falling plywood required securing.
- Bolanos v 50 Clinton Property Owner, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06086
The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a hazard and the failure to secure a scaffold cross brace. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the injury.
- Bethpage Federal Credit Union v Anthony Pepe2026 NY Slip Op 06085
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff because the RPAPL 1304 notices failed to include the mandatory website address for the NYS Office of the Attorney General’s Homeowner Protection Program. Consequently, the notices were facially defective, and the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.
- Bank of America, N.A. v Maddox2026 NY Slip Op 06084
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff because the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie standing and strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice requirements. Specifically, the plaintiff could not prove it held the note at the time of commencement or that the required 90-day notice was sent by both certified and first-class mail.
- 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.
- Apuzzo v Central Cabinets, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06082
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the decision and for a new inquest because the plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to damages. The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the plaintiff’s witness from testifying regarding the value of the cabinets because the witness lacked the requisite experience to render such an opinion.
- American Transit Insurance Company v Bliss Acupuncture, P.C.2026 NY Slip Op 06081
The dismissal of a de novo action due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery demands revives the underlying master arbitration award, making it binding on the parties. Consequently, the defendant is entitled to confirmation of that award and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees for services performed in connection with the de novo action and the appeal.
Week ending October 17, 2026
Browse the week ending October 17, 2026
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Begum2026 NY Slip Op 05996
The judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed because the plaintiff established standing and compliance with RPAPL 1303 notice requirements. The appellant’s objections to the referee’s report were deemed untimely, and her remaining arguments were either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit.
- 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.
- Vashovsky v Zablocki2026 NY Slip Op 05993
The appellate court reversed the lower court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, granting dismissal of the causes of action for interference with a prospective economic advantage. The court held that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the defendants’ actions were meant solely to harm the plaintiff or constituted wrongful means.
- Vashovsky v Zablocki2026 NY Slip Op 05992
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert RICO and fraud claims because the proposed causes of action were palpably insufficient. Additionally, the court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their breach of contract counterclaim because the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding waiver.
- US Bank National Association, etc., respondent, v Jason Vento, appellant, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05991
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s confirmation of the referee’s report because the referee failed to identify documents or sources supporting the finding that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel. The matter was remitted for a new determination regarding whether the property can be sold in parcels.
- U.S. Bank, NA v Lang2026 NY Slip Op 05990
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred because the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) replaced the CPLR 205(a) savings provision with CPLR 205-a, which does not apply to prior actions dismissed as abandoned. Consequently, the plaintiff could not rely on the six-month savings provision to toll the statute of limitations for the new action.
- 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.
- 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.
- Soutar v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05986
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding the defendants failed to raise a triable issue regarding the ladder’s security or a recalcitrant worker defense. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, as the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the relevant regulations were inapplicable or that they lacked control over the work site.
- 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.
- People v Berta2026 NY Slip Op 05983
The court affirmed the designation of the defendant as a level three sex offender, finding that he failed to establish that his age or health issues warranted a downward departure from the presumptive risk level. The appellate court determined that the defendant did not demonstrate that these factors resulted in an overassessment of his risk to public safety.
- People v Pressley2026 NY Slip Op 05978
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal precluded review of the sentence’s excessiveness. The court declined to exercise interest of justice jurisdiction regarding the order of protection because the issue was unpreserved.
- People v Owoaje2026 NY Slip Op 05977
The judgment convicting the defendant of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child is affirmed. The court found no error in the replacement of an unsworn juror, the admission of DNA evidence, or the exclusion of certain hearsay and grand jury testimony, and determined that any improper prosecutorial comments were harmless.
- People v Milligan2026 NY Slip Op 05975
The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the defendant’s claims regarding the withdrawal of his plea and judicial bias were unpreserved or based on matters outside the record. The court determined that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and directed that the mixed claim of ineffective assistance of counsel be raised in a CPL 440.10 proceeding.
- People v Manzi2026 NY Slip Op 05974
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the County Court did not improperly delegate judicial authority by allowing the Probation Department to determine the appropriateness of specific program conditions. The court further determined that the defendant’s arguments regarding the tailoring of conditions and coercion were unpreserved for appellate review.
- People v Guzman2026 NY Slip Op 05972
The court vacated several convictions, including strangulation and assault, because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove physical injury or that the objects used were dangerous instruments. Additionally, certain counts were dismissed as duplicitous because they encompassed multiple acts, making it impossible to determine the basis for the guilty verdict.
- People v Gaston2026 NY Slip Op 05971
The court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial court improperly dismissed the entire sworn jury panel without first inquiring into the remaining jurors’ ability to be fair and impartial. This action violated the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury selected according to law, and the error was not subject to harmless error analysis.
- People v Gast2026 NY Slip Op 05970
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated to satisfy the legal requirements. However, the court modified the sentence to make the term for one count of burglary in the first degree as a hate crime run concurrently with all other sentences.
- Pennymac Corp. v New York City Envtl. Control Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 05966
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of a nonparty’s motion to stay enforcement of a foreclosure judgment. The court held that the nonparty was bound by the proceedings because its conveyance was recorded after the filing of a notice of pendency.
- 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.
- Nunez v Spiegel2026 NY Slip Op 05964
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the discharged attorney’s motion for an allocation of a portion of the net contingency fee, as there was sufficient evidence to determine the firm’s proportionate share of the work. The Appellate Division modified the order to grant the discharged firm 10% of the net contingency fee based on the time, labor, and effectiveness of its prior representation.
- 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.
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Fernandez2026 NY Slip Op 05962
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred and the cancellation of the mortgage, finding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applied retroactively to preclude the plaintiff from using the CPLR 205(a) savings provision after a prior dismissal for neglect. The six-year statute of limitations began running upon the acceleration of the debt in the prior 2007 action, and the current action was commenced too late to be timely.
- Matter of VN Property, Inc. v Byrne2026 NY Slip Op 05961
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of area variances was supported by a rational basis and the record. The court determined that the board properly applied the statutory balancing test and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.
- 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.
- Matter of Sincere S. (Kelsey L.R.)2026 NY Slip Op 05959
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s denial of the mother’s motion to vacate a finding of neglect. The court determined that the mother failed to establish good cause and did not demonstrate that vacating the finding would serve the child’s best interests.
- Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Boston Mkt. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 05958
The court confirmed the determination that Boston Market Corporation unlawfully discriminated against the complainant based on sex and upheld the associated damages and civil penalties. However, the court annulled the portion of the determination seeking enforcement against the individual respondent, Nicholas Foreman, because he cannot be held individually liable for the damages awarded.
- Matter of Multani v Singh2026 NY Slip Op 05957
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s orders granting the mother sole custody and dismissing the father’s petition, finding that the father failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the hearing. The court also affirmed the denial of the father’s motion to vacate the default, noting his lack of explanation for not contacting the court or his attorney during his hospitalization.
- Matter of Marchese Assoc., LLC v Limitless Auto. Group, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05956
The court affirmed the cancellation of a notice of pendency because, once the plaintiff was determined to be entitled only to monetary damages rather than specific performance, maintaining the notice carried indicia of bad faith. The likelihood of success on the merits was deemed irrelevant to the validity of the notice under CPLR 6514.
- Matter of Kahn2026 NY Slip Op 05955
The court imposed reciprocal disbarment on the respondent based on his consent to disbarment in New Jersey for knowing misappropriation of escrow funds. The court determined that the sanction warranted under New York rules for an attorney who submits a resignation during a grievance investigation is disbarment.
- Matter of Zyhir J. (Garland J.)2026 NY Slip Op 05954
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the children, as the evidence established he took them to shoplift, grew marijuana in their sleeping area, and asked them to provide urine samples for his own tests. The court further held that the children’s out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by their consistency and mutual support.
- Matter of Hunter v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Islip2026 NY Slip Op 05953
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of area variances was not arbitrary or capricious. The court determined that the Board properly applied the required balancing test and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Board reached a different result on essentially the same facts as a prior permit.
- Matter of George v Ranga2026 NY Slip Op 05952
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s denial of the mother’s objections, finding that she failed to demonstrate diligent attempts to secure commensurate employment. Consequently, the Support Magistrate properly based the child support calculation on the mother’s 2024 tax return income rather than her current reduced earnings.
- Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v Town of Hempstead2026 NY Slip Op 05951
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The petitioner initiated the proceeding before the Town had issued a final determination on the FOIL request, and the petitioner did not appeal the Town’s subsequent response.
- Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v Town of Hempstead2026 NY Slip Op 05950
The court held that the petitioner exhausted administrative remedies because the Town failed to timely respond to the FOIL appeal, and the petitioner substantially prevailed, entitling them to an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The branch of the petition seeking to compel production of records was properly dismissed as moot because the Town had already produced all responsive documents during the pendency of the proceeding.
- Martinez v Hands of Hope P.T., P.C.2026 NY Slip Op 05949
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim under the New York City Human Rights Law against the employer, holding that a physical therapist assistant’s sexual assault was outside the scope of employment. The court determined that such conduct, committed for wholly personal motives, does not further the employer’s business and thus precludes vicarious liability.
- 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.
- 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.
- Hernandez v Board of Mgrs. of the NOMA Condominium2026 NY Slip Op 05942
The court affirmed summary judgment on liability for Labor Law § 240(1) violations, finding the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices for elevated work. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment on Labor Law § 241(6) and third-party claims, as triable issues of fact remained regarding statutory violations and contractual compliance.
- Henick-Lane, Inc. v Hudson Meridian Constr. Group, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05941
The court affirmed the dismissal of counterclaims for purely economic losses based on an unambiguous indemnity clause that specifically excluded such damages. However, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding costs for security and lost equipment, finding triable issues of fact concerning whether these were consequential damages reasonably contemplated by the parties.
- Grubmarket, Inc. v Thai2026 NY Slip Op 05940
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the first counterclaim for breach of contract but granted the motion to dismiss the second counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The dismissal of the second counterclaim was warranted because the allegations sought tort remedies or were duplicative of the contract claim, and the employment agreement permitted termination at will.
- 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.
- 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.
- Deutsche Bank, National Trust Company, etc., v Vicki Suhyun Wong, respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05934
The court affirmed the lower court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) could not be applied retroactively. The court held that the voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action did not revoke the acceleration of the loan or reset the statute of limitations.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Pamela Merrill2026 NY Slip Op 05933
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action and the grant of the counterclaim to cancel the mortgage, holding that the statute of limitations began running when the plaintiff accelerated the debt in a prior action. The court determined that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) prevents the voluntary discontinuance of a prior action from reviving or resetting the statute of limitations.
- 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.
- Davidoff v Hershfield2026 NY Slip Op 05931
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the promissory note lacked clear language expressly providing for the recovery of fees on fees. The court held that such a right to recover attorneys’ fees for prosecuting a claim for attorneys’ fees must be based on a specific contractual provision and cannot be implied.
- 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.
- CFS Enterprises, Inc. v CG & J Realty, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05929
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a mechanic’s lien bond because the defendant failed to strictly comply with the service requirements of Lien Law § 59. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding that the defendant’s appeal was not frivolous.
- 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.
- 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.
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeLoney2026 NY Slip Op 05925
The defendant retained standing to defend the foreclosure action because the plaintiff sought a deficiency judgment against him despite his conveyance of the property. The court affirmed the judgment of foreclosure and sale, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate a basis for vacating the summary judgment order.
- Alexim Holdings, LLC v Chang-Wardi2026 NY Slip Op 05924
The court affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim because a valid contract governed the subject matter, but reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss the injunctive relief claim. The court held that injunctive relief was inappropriate because the builder’s injury could be adequately compensated by money damages.
- 260 Prestige Brownstone 260 Corp. v 260 Clifton Pl, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05923
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint because the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the plaintiff’s claim to a 50% interest in the property. The court found that the chain of title did not conclusively establish the defendant’s grantor had authority to convey a 100% interest, nor did a broker agreement establish equitable estoppel.
Week ending October 10, 2026
Browse the week ending October 10, 2026
- White v Titan Capital ID, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05826
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and tortious interference claims, finding no triable issues of fact. However, the court reversed the denial of attorneys’ fees, holding that the loan agreements unmistakably required the plaintiffs to indemnify the defendants for litigation costs.
- 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.
- USMMA Sailing Found., Inc. v Hilb Group of N.Y., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05824
The court reversed the lower court’s order and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the General Business Law § 349 cause of action and the associated request for attorneys’ fees. The court determined that the plaintiff’s allegations described a private contract dispute unique to the parties rather than conduct with a broad impact on consumers at large.
- U.S. Bank National Association v Mahmood Ali, et al.2026 NY Slip Op 05823
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment and foreclosure because the plaintiff failed to establish compliance with HUD regulations requiring a meeting prior to debt acceleration. The court determined that the defendant’s affirmative defense regarding this regulatory failure was sufficiently pleaded under CPLR 3015(a).
- Shapiro v Kushnick-Carr2026 NY Slip Op 05822
The court held that the plaintiff’s defamation claim lacked a substantial basis in law because the defendant’s Google review constituted nonactionable pure opinion rather than factual assertion. Consequently, the action was deemed a SLAPP suit, warranting dismissal and an award of attorneys’ fees to the defendant.
- 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.
- RMX Foods, Inc. v Adelson2026 NY Slip Op 05819
The court affirmed the dismissal of the first and second causes of action, deeming them motions for declaratory judgment in favor of the defendants, because the stockholders agreement unambiguously permitted the Adelsons to retain their shares. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the third cause of action as time-barred under the statute of limitations for breach of contract.
- 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.
- Point 62, LLC v 192 E. Lindbergh, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05817
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment and order of reference. The court found that unique circumstances warranted vacating the judgment in the interests of justice because the defendant raised an affirmative defense that the State-owned property cannot be subject to tax foreclosure.
- People v Cuenca2026 NY Slip Op 05816
The court affirmed the designation of the defendant as a level two sex offender, finding that he failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his response to treatment was exceptional or that other mitigating factors warranted a downward departure from the presumptive risk level.
- People v M.W.2026 NY Slip Op 05815
The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act without a hearing because the defendant submitted sufficient corroborating evidence. The matter is remitted for a hearing to determine if the defendant should be resentenced in accordance with Penal Law § 60.12.
- People v Jorge2026 NY Slip Op 05811
The court reversed the conviction because the trial court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s absence before proceeding with the trial. The record did not establish that the defendant deliberately absented himself to forfeit his right to be present, nor did it show the court considered all appropriate factors for proceeding in absentia.
- People v Gardner2026 NY Slip Op 05809
The court held that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v United States does not require a jury to determine whether a defendant committed a predicate felony within the ten-year lookback period for second felony offender status. Instead, judges are constitutionally permitted to make these findings, including calculations regarding tolling periods, without a jury.
- People v Felton2026 NY Slip Op 05808
The appellate court vacated the duration of the order of protection because the trial court failed to credit the defendant for jail time served. The court remitted the matter for a new determination of the duration while keeping the order in effect pending that determination.
- People v Drago2026 NY Slip Op 05807
The court vacated the defendant’s petit larceny conviction and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the defense of a good faith claim of right. The majority determined that evidence, including prior removal of memorial items and a specific jury note, reasonably supported the defense, making the failure to charge it reversible error.
- People v Degraffenried2026 NY Slip Op 05806
The court affirmed the judgments, finding that the defendant violated a valid plea condition by contradicting his sworn admissions during a probation interview, which justified an enhanced sentence. Additionally, the court held that the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal precluded review of the sentence’s excessiveness.
- People v Cammarata2026 NY Slip Op 05805
The court affirmed the conviction but modified the judgment to require that the sentences for concealment of a human corpse and tampering with physical evidence run concurrently. The court found that the People failed to establish that these convictions were separate and distinct offenses.
- People v Best2026 NY Slip Op 05804
The appellate court held that the defendant’s appeal waiver was invalid because it was discussed only after she admitted guilt, rather than as part of the plea agreement. Consequently, the court reviewed the excessive sentence claim but affirmed the judgment because the sentence was not excessive.
- People v Benson2026 NY Slip Op 05803
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The court also held that the admission of testimony regarding a confidential informant did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it was used to show the officers’ state of mind rather than for its truth.
- NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v Phillip2026 NY Slip Op 05802
The court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to vacate prior orders, holding that the decedent’s death did not divest the court of jurisdiction because a default judgment had already been entered. Additionally, the court ruled that CPLR 317 is inapplicable to tax lien foreclosure actions and that the defendants failed to establish a basis for vacating the default under CPLR 2004 or 3012(d).
- 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 Yeo v Yeo2026 NY Slip Op 05800
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s denial of the father’s motions to vacate default orders of fact-finding and protection. The court held that the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the hearing, which was a necessary prerequisite to vacating the default.
- Matter of WA High Inv., LLC v Niblack2026 NY Slip Op 05799
The court held that the Department of Finance’s denial of a clerical error application was arbitrary and capricious because the property was vacant land zoned residential in Brooklyn, which is statutorily classified as tax class one. Consequently, the determination was annulled and the property was reclassified from tax class four to tax class one for the fiscal years 2017 to 2019.
- Matter of Grace-Monae Jesse W. (Valarie W.)2026 NY Slip Op 05798
The Appellate Division affirmed the termination of the mother’s parental rights, finding that the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship while the mother failed to plan for the child’s future. The court determined that a suspended judgment was inappropriate because the mother did not gain insight into the issues causing the child’s removal.
- Matter of Shea2026 NY Slip Op 05797
The court confirmed the Special Referee’s report sustaining charges of misappropriating client funds and engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness as a lawyer. The respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the court rejecting his request for private discipline.
- Matter of Sanders v Ellis2026 NY Slip Op 05796
The court affirmed the dismissal of the putative grandmother’s petition, holding that while she established biological standing, equitable considerations did not warrant judicial intervention to grant visitation. The court found that the mother’s objections were well-founded and that the prior visitation order did not independently confer standing.
- Matter of Sanchez2026 NY Slip Op 05795
The court imposed reciprocal public censure on the respondent for professional misconduct, including failure to attend oral arguments and filing frivolous briefs, based on a prior public reprimand by the Second Circuit. The court determined that the foreign jurisdiction’s sanction was not inconsistent with New York standards and thus warranted the same level of discipline.
- Matter of Zacari S. (Messiah K.S.)2026 NY Slip Op 05794
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s finding of neglect, determining that the father’s commission of acts of domestic violence in the children’s presence and infliction of excessive corporal punishment impaired or endangered the children’s condition. The court noted that review was limited to contested matters due to the father’s default at the dispositional hearing.
- Matter of Michael S.2026 NY Slip Op 05793
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s adjudication of delinquency, holding that it was proper to proceed with the appearance in the absence of a parent after a reasonable and substantial effort was made to contact him. The court further determined that the appellant’s admissions and allocutions were valid and that certain challenges were unpreserved for appellate review.
- Matter of Rivicci v New York City Fire Dept.2026 NY Slip Op 05792
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s judgment, holding that the denial of the firefighter’s request for a religious accommodation from the vaccine mandate was not arbitrary or capricious because it would cause an undue hardship. The court further determined that the City’s process satisfied the cooperative dialogue requirements of the New York City Human Rights Law.
- Matter of Alexander M.R. (Manuel D. J. R.)2026 NY Slip Op 05790
The court affirmed the findings of sexual abuse and neglect but reversed the provision conditioning the father’s parental access on the child’s consent. The appellate court held that the Family Court improperly delegated its authority to determine parental access to the child.
- Matter of Auner M. (Pedro M.)2026 NY Slip Op 05789
The Appellate Division affirmed the termination of the father’s parental rights, finding that the agency exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship while the father failed to plan for the child’s future. The court further determined that terminating rights and transferring custody for adoption was in the child’s best interests, rejecting the argument for a suspended judgment.
- Matter of Elmezzi2026 NY Slip Op 05788
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the petitioners’ claim for a constructive trust, finding that they failed to establish the elements of promise, reliance, and unjust enrichment by clear and convincing evidence. The court deferred to the Surrogate’s Court’s credibility determinations made during the nonjury trial.
- 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.
- Matter of Covington2026 NY Slip Op 05785
The Surrogate’s Court erred in dismissing the petition without a hearing because the verified allegations indicated the testator’s intent was not clear and unambiguous. The matter was remitted to allow the petitioner the opportunity to submit proof to establish the decedent’s intent.
- Matter of Hana-Aluna O. C.-M. (Kimberly C.)2026 NY Slip Op 05784
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order of disposition finding that the mother neglected the child by failing to provide adequate shelter and food. The court determined that the child’s out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by witness testimony and records to support the finding of neglect.
- Matter of Mecca B. (Lashonda B.)2026 NY Slip Op 05783
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment. The court held that a separate dispositional hearing is not required upon a finding of abandonment and that the lower court properly exercised its discretion in proceeding without one.
- Matter of Axelrod2026 NY Slip Op 05782
The court imposed reciprocal disbarment on the respondent based on his resignation from the Connecticut Bar during a pending grievance investigation. The court determined that the appropriate sanction for an attorney who submits a resignation during the pendency of a grievance investigation is disbarment.
- Matter of 106 Astoria Blvd., LLC v Niblack2026 NY Slip Op 05781
The court held that the Department of Finance committed an error of law by failing to classify four vacant lots in Queens as tax class one, as required for residentially zoned land outside Manhattan. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision to annul the determinations and direct the reclassification of the properties.
- Millender-Rubin v Rubin2026 NY Slip Op 05780
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order by denying the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment awarding her exclusive possession of the cryopreserved embryos. The court determined that neither party established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they failed to identify which specific IVF cycle produced the disputed embryos or submit the corresponding cryopreservation agreement.
- Martinez v Equinox Holdings, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05779
The court affirmed the order compelling arbitration because the arbitration clause was separable from the substantive provisions of the membership agreement. The plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was void due to Health Club Act violations did not render the arbitration clause itself unenforceable.
- 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.
- 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.
- Gittler v Pinsky2026 NY Slip Op 05771
The Appellate Division reversed summary judgment for the anesthesiologist and his group because their expert relied on disputed facts and offered opinions outside their specialization. Conversely, the court affirmed summary judgment for the hospital because its expert established that an earlier diagnosis would not have changed the patient’s prognosis or outcome.
- 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.
- Fritz v Kurmel Brokerage, Ltd.2026 NY Slip Op 05769
The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s negligence and breach of contract claims against the insurance broker because the plaintiff failed to make a specific request for the additional coverage he later claimed was missing. The broker had no continuing duty to advise the client on updated coverage absent a specific request or a special relationship.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- Chance v Chance2026 NY Slip Op 05764
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of divorce, holding that the father forfeited his right to assigned counsel due to egregious conduct and that the trial court properly denied his request for an adjournment. The court determined that review was limited to matters contested below because the judgment was entered upon the father’s default.
- 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.
- Cammayo v 1AND8, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05762
The voluntary payment doctrine does not preclude a cause of action for damages alleging a violation of Arts and Cultural Affairs Law § 25.07(4) because the statute requires disclosure prior to ticket selection. The plaintiff has standing to sue based on the injury of paying an allegedly unlawful fee, and triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the fee disclosure was clear and conspicuous.
- 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.
- Bank of America, N.A. v Russell2026 NY Slip Op 05759
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the foreclosure action as time-barred. The court determined that the defendants were equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations defense because their misconduct, including false occupancy certifications, caused the plaintiff’s delay in filing suit.
- 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.
- Alarcon v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co.2026 NY Slip Op 05757
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and the entry of a declaratory judgment that the insurance policies were void ab initio. The insurer established that the plaintiff made a material misrepresentation by stating the property was a one-family dwelling when it was structurally a three-family dwelling, and the insurer would not have issued the policy had the correct information been disclosed.
- 710 E Elizabeth Ave, LLC, et al., appellants, v Jhong Kim, respondent.2026 NY Slip Op 05756
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal, reinstating the amended complaint and remitting the matter for judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court found that the defendant failed to prove he was acting as an agent for a disclosed principal, thereby establishing personal liability for the breach of the loan agreement.
- 21-55 45th Road, LLC v Altamirano2026 NY Slip Op 05755
The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, finding that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the cure of default. The court held that a dispute over the total amount of indebtedness does not preclude summary judgment on the foreclosure cause of action but is properly resolved by a referee.
Week ending October 3, 2026
Browse the week ending October 3, 2026
- Matter of Vitucci v Ford2026 NY Slip Op 05682
The court held that the proceeding to validate the certificate of nomination was timely because it was commenced within three business days of the Board’s determination. Additionally, the court determined that Election Law § 6-148(4) is inapplicable to the certificate of nomination because the vacancy was created by a legislative act rather than a vacancy in a preexisting nomination or designation.
Also decided
- 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
- People v Wolfe 2026 NY Slip Op 06470 November 4, 2026
- People v White 2026 NY Slip Op 06469 November 4, 2026
- People v Walder 2026 NY Slip Op 06468 November 4, 2026
- People v Simmonds 2026 NY Slip Op 06465 November 4, 2026
- People v Punch 2026 NY Slip Op 06461 November 4, 2026
- People v Porter 2026 NY Slip Op 06459 November 4, 2026
- People v Moncayo 2026 NY Slip Op 06458 November 4, 2026
- People v Meyn 2026 NY Slip Op 06457 November 4, 2026
- People v Jones 2026 NY Slip Op 06454 November 4, 2026
- People v Harrell 2026 NY Slip Op 06453 November 4, 2026
- People v Coulibaly 2026 NY Slip Op 06451 November 4, 2026
- People ex rel. Bright v Richards 2026 NY Slip Op 06449 November 4, 2026
- 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
- Mbaye v JP Morgan Chase Bank 2026 NY Slip Op 06429 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
- People ex rel. Cassar v Toulon 2026 NY Slip Op 06401 November 2, 2026
- People v Vasquez 2026 NY Slip Op 06334 October 28, 2026
- People v Taylor 2026 NY Slip Op 06333 October 28, 2026
- People v Sewell 2026 NY Slip Op 06332 October 28, 2026
- People v Jeff P. 2026 NY Slip Op 06327 October 28, 2026
- People v Moore 2026 NY Slip Op 06325 October 28, 2026
- People v Moore 2026 NY Slip Op 06324 October 28, 2026
- People v Moore 2026 NY Slip Op 06323 October 28, 2026
- People v Hill 2026 NY Slip Op 06320 October 28, 2026
- People v Haywood 2026 NY Slip Op 06319 October 28, 2026
- People v Deans 2026 NY Slip Op 06318 October 28, 2026
- People v Coffey 2026 NY Slip Op 06317 October 28, 2026
- People v Allen 2026 NY Slip Op 06314 October 28, 2026
- Newhouse v SSMG Realty, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 06312 October 28, 2026
- Matter of Congregation Radin Dev., Inc. v Town of Ramapo 2026 NY Slip Op 06299 October 28, 2026
- Wilson v Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream 2026 NY Slip Op 06165 October 21, 2026
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v Nektalov 2026 NY Slip Op 06163 October 21, 2026
- People v Lema-Curillo 2026 NY Slip Op 06151 October 21, 2026
- People v Worrell 2026 NY Slip Op 06150 October 21, 2026
- People v Mendoza 2026 NY Slip Op 06144 October 21, 2026
- People v Martinez 2026 NY Slip Op 06143 October 21, 2026
- People v Liriano 2026 NY Slip Op 06141 October 21, 2026
- People v Hulse 2026 NY Slip Op 06138 October 21, 2026
- People v Graydon 2026 NY Slip Op 06136 October 21, 2026
- People v Gilchrist 2026 NY Slip Op 06134 October 21, 2026
- People v Castillo 2026 NY Slip Op 06131 October 21, 2026
- People v Bruno 2026 NY Slip Op 06130 October 21, 2026
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Katz 2026 NY Slip Op 06126 October 21, 2026
- Matter of Red Hook Boat Club, Inc. v Town Bd. of Town of Red Hook 2026 NY Slip Op 06122 October 21, 2026
- Matter of M. (Wanda) 2026 NY Slip Op 06119 October 21, 2026
- Matter of Carlos Gonzalez, a suspended attorney, respondent 2026 NY Slip Op 06116 October 21, 2026
- Montera v Ravitz 2026 NY Slip Op 06111 October 21, 2026
- People v Tippa 2026 NY Slip Op 05982 October 14, 2026
- People v Thomas 2026 NY Slip Op 05981 October 14, 2026
- People v Swaby 2026 NY Slip Op 05980 October 14, 2026
- People v Richards 2026 NY Slip Op 05979 October 14, 2026
- People v Ortiz 2026 NY Slip Op 05976 October 14, 2026
- People v Ly 2026 NY Slip Op 05973 October 14, 2026
- People v Forte 2026 NY Slip Op 05969 October 14, 2026
- People v Chen Liu 2026 NY Slip Op 05968 October 14, 2026
- People v Brown 2026 NY Slip Op 05967 October 14, 2026
- Beale v K Mart Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 05926 October 14, 2026
- People v Slator 2026 NY Slip Op 05814 October 7, 2026
- People v Roca 2026 NY Slip Op 05813 October 7, 2026
- People v Perkins 2026 NY Slip Op 05812 October 7, 2026
- People v Jabbour 2026 NY Slip Op 05810 October 7, 2026
- Matter of Rivicci v New York City Fire Dept. 2026 NY Slip Op 05791 October 7, 2026
- Matter of DiPietro v Delacruz 2026 NY Slip Op 05787 October 7, 2026
- Guliyev v Banilov & Assoc., P.C. 2026 NY Slip Op 05773 October 7, 2026
- Matter of Ford v Vitucci 2026 NY Slip Op 05681 October 2, 2026