New York Law Watch
Decisions filed in August 2026
For August 2026, Law Watch lists 9 indexable decisions dated August 7, 2026 to August 21, 2026 across 2 decision weeks.
10 decision records: 9 meet the substance floor; 1 record is held from search listings.
Every decision that passed Law Watch’s clean-text gates in August 2026, from the official reporter. Decisions that do not meet the substance floor are listed but not indexed.
August 21, 2026
- 224-01 141st Ave., LLC v K & S Laurelton Mini Mart, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 51582[U]
The court reversed the final judgment and vacated the lower court’s orders because it was error to deny the tenant’s motion to vacate the stipulation without first holding a hearing to determine who had the authority to bind the corporate tenant. The matter was remitted for a new determination following a hearing to resolve the dispute over corporate authority.
- People v Fernandez2026 NY Slip Op 51581[U]
The accusatory instrument for petit larceny was facially sufficient because it alleged facts of an evidentiary character, including surveillance video and a statement, that provided reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime. Questions regarding how the complainant recognized the defendant in the video are matters for trial and do not render the instrument jurisdictionally defective.
August 20, 2026
- People v Sourour2026 NY Slip Op 51580[U]
The court affirmed the convictions for forcible touching and sexual abuse in the third degree, finding the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Additionally, the court upheld the probation conditions of home confinement and employment restrictions as reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation.
- Richgold Assoc., LLC v Chai Care, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51579[U]
The Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the tenant’s motion to vacate the final judgment and warrant, finding that while the warrant was subject to vacatur prior to execution due to the tenant’s zero balance, the court did not find relief warranted after execution. The court emphasized that strict enforcement of the stipulation was appropriate because the parties were sophisticated, represented by counsel, and the tenant’s repeated defaults were neither inadvertent nor trivial.
- 497 Van Cortlandt Park, LLC v Alsaidi2026 NY Slip Op 51578[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s order vacating a default judgment because the defendants failed to demonstrate that they did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend. The court found that testimony from a family member was insufficient to establish that the named defendant did not receive service, thereby precluding relief under CPLR 317 and CPLR 5015 (a) (1).
- People v De Oliveira2026 NY Slip Op 51577[U]
The court affirmed the convictions for forcible touching and sexual abuse in the third degree, determining that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that the defendant forcibly touched the complainant’s face, an intimate body part, for sexual gratification. The court also upheld the admission of prior bad act testimony as relevant to intent and motive, and found the sentences were not unduly harsh.
- People v May2026 NY Slip Op 51576[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the accusatory instruments, finding that the People had exercised good faith and due diligence in filing their certificate of compliance despite late disclosure of police disciplinary records. The court determined that less than 90 days of delay were chargeable to the People, meaning the statutory speedy trial deadline was not violated.
- People v Gehlhaus2026 NY Slip Op 51575[U]
The certificate of compliance was valid because the People were not required to automatically disclose police disciplinary records unrelated to the subject matter of the case under the law in effect at the time. Consequently, the People timely announced their readiness for trial, and the accusatory instrument was reinstated.
August 7, 2026
- 47-05 Ctr. SPE, LLC v Hack2026 NY Slip Op 51314[U]
The court affirmed the judgment awarding possession, holding that a typographical error in the nonrenewal notice was a de minimis defect that did not confuse the tenant or hinder their defense. Additionally, the court found that the simultaneous maintenance of a nonpayment and holdover proceeding did not vitiate the nonrenewal notice given the limited overlap and voluntary discontinuance of the nonpayment action.
Also decided
- VXI Lux Holdco S.A R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 51408[U] August 28, 2026