https://esqhq.com/Decision records from ESQ HQ, with verified passages and official source links.https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06611/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06611/The court granted the respondent’s motion for reinstatement after determining by clear and convincing evidence that she satisfied the requisite character and fitness standards. The court further found that reinstatement would be in the public interest, ordering her reinstatement effective immediately.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06587/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06587/The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of leave to serve a late notice of claim against Lavelle School for the Blind. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim or provided a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06586/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06586/The dismissal of the medical malpractice complaint was affirmed because the plaintiff was not an authorized representative of the decedent’s estate and lacked the capacity to sue pro se. The court determined that only a personal representative with letters of administration could maintain the wrongful death and personal injury claims.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06604/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06604/The appeal is dismissed as moot because the successor executor resigned and an independent fiduciary was appointed, rendering the challenge to the appointment without practical consequences. Additionally, the petitioner is not an aggrieved party regarding the will’s probate because he consented to its admission.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06585/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06585/The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for serious injury because the defendants established that the plaintiff’s left knee injury was not causally related to the accident. The plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as his medical records were uncertified and his expert report was unaffirmed, leaving the defendants’ radiologist’s findings of chronic degeneration unrefuted.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06603/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06603/The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the Town’s motion to dismiss because the record was insufficient to determine if the written notice provided to a highway department employee satisfied the statutory requirement of notice to the town clerk or superintendent of highways. The court found that discovery was necessary to clarify the internal forwarding of the notice and the functional equivalent of the abolished superintendent position.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06584/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06584/The petition was properly dismissed for facial insufficiency because the uncertified, unverified, and unsigned grand jury minutes submitted were hearsay, and the petition did not otherwise contain any nonhearsay allegations. The Presentment Agency was permitted to appeal the dismissal order because the respondent’s motion to dismiss was filed untimely, causing the order to be entered after the fact-finding hearing had commenced.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06602/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06602/The Workers’ Compensation Board’s disallowance of the claimant’s right wrist occupational disease claim was supported by substantial evidence because the medical opinions relied upon were not based on an understanding of the claimant’s relevant medical history. Consequently, there was a dearth of credible medical proof establishing a causal link between the distinctive feature of his occupation and the right wrist condition.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06601/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06601/The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s denial of the claimant’s request to amend her claim to include Long COVID, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that she failed to prove a causal connection between her April 2020 work-related infection and her later symptoms. The court noted that the claimant’s second, non-work-related infection and preexisting conditions complicated the medical evidence regarding causality.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06582/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06582/The conviction for assault in the third degree and official misconduct was affirmed because the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The court determined that the defendant, a police officer, lacked reasonable grounds to use pepper spray on a restrained victim.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06600/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06600/The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the planning board’s issuance of a negative declaration under SEQRA was not arbitrary or capricious. The court determined that the board adequately identified pertinent areas of environmental concern and took a hard look at the evidence regarding synthetic turf risks.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06599/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06599/The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the Comptroller’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and not irrational or unreasonable. The agency reasonably interpreted the statutes to set the petitioner’s contribution cessation date at the effective date of his transfer from a tier 6 to tier 4 membership, rather than his initial enrollment date.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06580/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06580/The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence but modified the judgment by striking probation conditions 14, 15, and 24 as unopposed. The court upheld the remaining probation conditions as reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, while declining to review unpreserved constitutional challenges.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06598/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06598/The court affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits because the claimant failed to provide timely written notice of her injury to the employer. The Board’s determination that the employer was prejudiced by the delay and lacked adequate knowledge of the work-related injury was supported by the record.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06579/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06579/The conviction for attempted burglary in the second degree was reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel, as the grand jury evidence was legally insufficient to establish the requisite intent to commit a crime. The court found that counsel’s failure to properly litigate the insufficiency of the evidence after receiving the grand jury minutes implicated the voluntariness of the defendant’s guilty plea and waiver of appeal.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06597/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06597/The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s award of primary physical custody to the father, finding that the mother’s relocation and the breakdown of the parties’ informal agreement constituted a change in circumstances. The court determined that the father provided a more stable environment given the mother’s ongoing struggle with alcoholism and her failure to disclose her relocation.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06577/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06577/The court held that the detective lacked a good faith basis to believe the driver had authority to consent to the search of a bag she explicitly denied owning. Consequently, the search was unlawful, and the resulting evidence, including narcotics and items from a subsequent warrant, was suppressed.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06595/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06595/The court affirmed the conviction, determining that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal through a combined oral and written waiver. Consequently, the defendant’s challenges to the severity of the sentence and fine were precluded, while his plea voluntariness claims were deemed unpreserved.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06576/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06576/The court affirmed the dismissal of a petition to set aside a pastoral election, finding that the church bylaws required election by a majority of votes cast rather than all eligible members. The court further held that the petitioners’ allegations of irregularities were conclusory and failed to demonstrate fraud or a substantial likelihood that the election outcome was affected.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06594/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06594/The appellate court affirmed the conviction, determining that the defendant’s appeal waiver was valid and voluntary despite being discussed after the plea. The court further held that the defendant’s unpreserved challenges to the voluntariness of the plea and the constitutionality of the statute were properly barred from review.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06575/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06575/The court affirmed the exclusion of defendants’ biomechanical expert because the methodology was not generally accepted and lacked probative value due to unsupported assumptions. The court modified the judgment to reduce the past pain and suffering award from $2,000,000 to $1,350,000, finding the original amount materially deviated from reasonable compensation.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06593/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06593/The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for second-degree murder and related offenses, finding that the weight of the evidence supported the jury’s rejection of the mental disease or defect defense. The court also determined that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on justification and that the defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06574/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06574/The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s denial of the father’s petition for custody modification, finding no change in circumstances and upholding the lower court’s credibility determinations. The court also determined that any error in admitting the mother’s diary was harmless because the father failed to demonstrate prejudice.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06592/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06592/The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant’s combined oral and written waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Consequently, the defendant’s challenge to the severity of his sentence was precluded, while his competency and ineffective assistance claims were deemed unpreserved for review.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06573/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06573/The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to reinstate the plaintiff’s claim for breach of a release provision, finding that the defendant failed to show the release utterly refuted the plaintiff’s reasonable interpretation of the clause. The court also affirmed the denial of sanctions, noting the law firm was not a respondent and the omission was corrected in the amended complaint.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06591/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06591/The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant’s challenges to the order of protection were unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to raise them at sentencing. Additionally, the court declined to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction because the order of protection was an agreed-upon term of the plea agreement.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06571/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06571/The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the petition as time-barred because the petitioner commenced the proceeding nearly one year after the final administrative determination. The court held that the determination was final and binding, and the dismissal was proper despite the petitioner’s arguments regarding the merits of his disciplinary suspension.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06589/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06589/The appellate court affirmed the conviction, determining that the defendant’s valid appeal waiver precluded his challenge to the severity of the enhanced sentence. Additionally, the court found the defendant’s claim that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made was unpreserved because he failed to pursue it in a postallocution motion.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06570/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06570/The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the negligence claims due to triable issues of fact regarding smoke alarms, door maintenance, and superintendent training. However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress because the plaintiff failed to witness the decedent’s injury.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06588/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06588/The court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial because the trial court improperly denied for-cause challenges to prospective jurors who expressed bias based on the number of charges. The court found that the jurors were not adequately rehabilitated, and the defendant’s exhaustion of peremptory challenges rendered the error reversible.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06569/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06569/The Appellate Division affirmed the preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from distributing encumbered proceeds, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a probability of success on the merits, irreparable harm due to unauthorized asset transfers, and a favorable balance of equities. The court noted that the injunction merely enforced existing contractual restrictions against distributions during default.Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-51894-u/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-51894-u/The court granted defendants’ motion for letters rogatory to obtain trading records from the London Stock Exchange, finding the evidence crucial to the litigation and unavailable through domestic means. The court determined that the request was narrowly tailored and satisfied the stringent requirements for international discovery.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06558/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06558/The court modified the judgment to strike probation conditions requiring the payment of a surcharge and fees, as well as a prohibition on gang affiliation, finding them not reasonably related to rehabilitation. The court affirmed the remaining probation conditions, including those related to drug testing and avoiding disreputable people, as reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06568/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06568/The Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment granted to the defendants, finding that the dashboard video and affidavits raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the defendant driver failed to yield and whether that failure was a proximate cause of the accident. The court determined that the police report and officer’s testimony were insufficient to establish the absence of fault.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06567/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06567/The complaint against defendant Tabaroki was properly dismissed because the plaintiff failed to plead actual malice, a required element for a malicious prosecution claim. Additionally, the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim was unpreserved and lacked evidence that the defendant acted under color of law.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06566/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06566/The appellate court reversed the summary judgment granted to the property owners because they failed to eliminate issues of fact regarding the plaintiff’s ability to identify the cause of her fall and the existence of constructive notice. The court affirmed the dismissal against a different defendant based on the plaintiff’s testimony that the accident occurred elsewhere.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06565/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06565/The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, granting an anti-suit injunction to stop defendants from prosecuting a California lawsuit. The court found that defendants acted in bad faith by concealing the California filing while engaging in settlement discussions and explicitly aiming to invalidate New York forum selection clauses.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06564/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06564/The Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff acted in a personal capacity out of malice to interfere with the defendant’s employment. The court also reinstated the defendant’s affirmative defense of setoff because the alleged damages exceeded the amount due on the promissory note.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06563/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06563/The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order holding defendants in civil contempt for violating a preliminary injunction that prohibited communication with a specific client. The court found that the defendants knowingly violated the injunction, and that willfulness is not a required element for civil contempt.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06560/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06560/The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the defendant waived his right to appeal the excessive sentence claim. Additionally, the court found that the defendant waived his argument regarding jury determination of tolling periods by admitting the allegations in the Predicate Felony Statement.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06559/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06559/The court modified the probation conditions by striking those requiring payment of surcharges, firearm restrictions, gang-related restrictions, and consent to searches, as they were not reasonably related to rehabilitation. The court affirmed the remaining conditions, including those related to substance abuse and family support, as reasonably necessary.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06557/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06557/The conviction for burglary in the second degree was reversed because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that the defendant could be convicted based on unlawfully remaining in the building. Because the jury was presented with mutually exclusive circumstances for entry and remaining, the error was not subject to harmless error analysis.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06556/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06556/The court affirmed the defendant’s designation as a level three sexually violent offender, rejecting the argument that age-based risk factors should be ignored based on scientific research. Although the lower court’s findings were insufficient, the upward departure was justified by the severity of the defendant’s conduct, including rape and murder.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06555/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06555/The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action because he lacked standing under RPAPL 1501(4) after his interest in the property was extinguished by a prior foreclosure sale. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff had constructive notice of the foreclosure action as a tenant, binding him to the proceedings.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06554/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06554/The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s finding that the appellant was legally responsible for the child and had abused the child, as the evidence established caretaking responsibilities and nonaccidental trauma. The court rejected the appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and bias, finding that counsel pursued a reasonable strategy and no specific prejudicial conduct was identified.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06553/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06553/The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her Labor Law § 241(6) claims. The court determined that the doorway constituted a passageway and the storage area a working area, satisfying the requirements of the applicable Industrial Code regulations.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06552/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06552/The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment, finding that her bare denial of service was insufficient and that she waived the defense by filing a notice of appearance. The court modified the turnover order to exclude pension monies held in trust and real property located in the Dominican Republic, as these are exempt from turnover under CPLR 5225.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06550/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06550/The appellate court affirmed the order compelling arbitration, determining that a subsequent amended and restated partnership agreement containing an arbitration clause superseded a prior agreement that lacked such a clause. The court held that the subsequent agreement’s explicit language terminating and superseding prior agreements applied to disputes predating the new agreement, even where the employment relationship involved distinct periods.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06549/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06549/The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the petition as time-barred because the university’s email stating admissions decisions were final constituted an unambiguously final decision. The court found that the petitioner failed to commence the proceeding within the statutory four-month period and did not demonstrate fraud to justify equitable estoppel.Tue, 10 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06497/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06497/The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the Master Plan and Unit Management Plan do not impose a nondiscretionary duty on the Department of Environmental Conservation to conduct a carrying capacity study. Because the relevant provisions are aspirational rather than mandatory, mandamus relief is unavailable to compel the agency’s exercise of professional judgment.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06548/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06548/The Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim, finding that the plaintiff’s testimony regarding the saw’s defective guard and lack of protection raised triable issues of fact. The court determined that the plaintiff was not barred from recovery simply because he was not the operator of the circular saw that injured him.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06547/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06547/The plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the note and guaranty, as the defendant’s failure to submit a signed extension agreement did not raise a triable issue of fact given objective evidence of intent. The court held that the plaintiff’s acceptance of reduced payments did not constitute a waiver of the right to full repayment due to the unambiguous no-waiver clause in the documents.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06516/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06516/The court granted David A. Lerner’s application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. His name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and he was ordered to desist from the practice of law in the State of New York.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06546/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06546/The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims for liquidated damages calculated on a per-building basis, holding that the construction contract limited such damages to the project as a whole. Additionally, the court ruled that the surety’s liability under the performance bond was capped at the general contractor’s contractual responsibilities, barring separate consequential damages.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06545/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06545/The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state viable claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, or unjust enrichment. The court determined that the operating agreement’s merger approval provision was reasonably interpreted under Delaware law to require only a majority vote, and that further repleading would be futile.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06544/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06544/The court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim and the § 241(6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1), but denied summary judgment on the § 241(6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) due to an issue of fact regarding the integral to work doctrine. Additionally, the court granted the defendant conditional contractual indemnification against the sub-subcontractor.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06543/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06543/The court reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, finding the claim insufficient due to group pleading and a failure to plead elements with specificity. The court further held that damages for being induced to negotiate are not cognizable in fraud and that the claim was duplicative of the breach of contract claim.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06512/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06512/The court granted the attorney’s application for permission to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. Consequently, the attorney’s name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and he was commanded to desist from the practice of law in the state.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06542/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06542/The court modified the lower court’s order to join the new owner as a party defendant rather than substituting it for the former owner, because substitution would prejudice the plaintiffs’ ability to seek discovery regarding the former owner’s willful conduct. Carryover liability applies to the current owner for overcharges by prior owners, but substitution is improper where it hinders the tenant’s litigation against the original wrongdoer.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06541/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06541/The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the plaintiff’s claim for a purchase price reduction under General Obligations Law § 5-1311 failed because the contract expressly allocated the risk of pre-closing loss and the plaintiff had waived inspection of the severely damaged property. The court found that the alleged damage was attributable to natural deterioration of the unsafe conditions the plaintiff knowingly accepted.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06510/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06510/The court granted the attorney’s application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. Consequently, his name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and he was commanded to desist from the practice of law in the state.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06540/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06540/The court affirmed the dismissal of a common-law indemnification claim because the underlying complaint failed to allege that the indemnitor was vicariously liable for the indemnitee’s conduct. Vicarious liability is a necessary predicate for common-law indemnity, which was absent here.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06539/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06539/The court affirmed the award of retainage damages without a trial because the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding defects. However, it vacated the judgment regarding requisition number 10 and remanded for a trial because conflicting versions of the document created factual disputes over the damages amount and interest accrual date.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06508/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06508/The court confirmed the disciplinary determination finding the petitioner guilty of making false statements and obstructing visibility, as substantial evidence supported the guilt. The court held that Correction Law § 138 (7) does not shield an incarcerated individual from being charged in a misbehavior report for intentionally filing a false misconduct report.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06507/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06507/The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies by discontinuing her appeals to the Commissioner of Education. The court rejected the petitioner’s arguments that administrative review would be futile or cause irreparable injury, noting that the Commissioner had the authority to stay the exclusion and that homeschooling was an alternative.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06506/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06506/The court confirmed the disciplinary determination finding the petitioner guilty of smuggling and possessing a weapon, as supported by substantial evidence. The court also rejected the petitioner’s claim that his hearing representative was improperly removed, noting his disruptive conduct justified the decision.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06504/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06504/The court held that a whistleblower retaliation claim under Civil Service Law § 75-b may be based on a government’s passive inaction rather than affirmative misconduct, reversing the dismissal of that claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of the defamation claim as untimely and the due process claim due to the availability of adequate alternative remedies.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06534/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06534/The court struck probation conditions 10, 15, 22, 23, and 24 because they were not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, such as imposing fees or requiring substance abuse testing without evidence of related offenses. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence otherwise, declining to review unpreserved constitutional and statutory challenges to other conditions.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06503/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06503/The court withheld decision and remitted the matter to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board because the Board failed to address whether the claimant’s September 2023 filing constituted a valid original claim. The court determined that the Board was required to make explicit findings on this issue rather than dismissing it as not properly before it.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06502/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06502/The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the defendant retained her Washington domicile while attending college in New York, thus precluding general jurisdiction. Additionally, the court found that the defendant’s academic activities did not constitute the continuous commercial presence required for general jurisdiction, and the defamation claim was excluded from specific jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06532/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06532/The court struck four probation conditions as not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, including prohibitions on gang affiliation and requirements for drug, alcohol, and psychiatric treatment. The court affirmed the remaining aspects of the judgment, noting that the defendant’s valid appeal waiver foreclosed review of his excessive sentence claim and as-applied constitutional challenges.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06501/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06501/The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the city code’s requirement for the highest negotiated annual percentage increase did not apply to a one-time salary chart restructuring. Consequently, the petitioners were only entitled to the 4% annual increase granted to the animal control officer, not the 7.01% increase resulting from the restructuring.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06531/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06531/The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision to adjudicate the defendant a level two sexually violent offender, finding that the court providently exercised its discretion in denying a downward departure. The court determined that the mitigating factors cited by the defendant were adequately considered by the risk assessment instrument and did not warrant an exceptional response.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06500/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06500/The court affirmed the dismissal of the defamation complaint, determining that the challenged statements by town officials were protected expressions of opinion rather than actionable assertions of fact. The court found that the remarks were not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning and did not imply undisclosed facts detrimental to the plaintiff.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06530/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06530/The conviction for manslaughter in the first degree was affirmed because the defendant was not entitled to notice of the Grand Jury proceeding before arraignment and the Batson challenge failed. The jury’s verdict was supported by the evidence, including the defendant’s repeated statements of intent to kill and the inference drawn from the severity of the stabbing.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06499/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06499/The court held that a driver’s license revocation hearing did not violate due process when the arresting officer testified via audio-only telephone rather than video. The court found that the petitioner had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that the administrative burden of requiring video access outweighed the minimal risk of erroneous deprivation.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06498/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06498/The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a dismissal for abandonment, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its prolonged delay. The court held that the plaintiff’s lack of factual allegations regarding the cause of the default and the subsequent six-year inactivity precluded relief under CPLR 5015(a)(1).Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06527/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06527/The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the complaint against the out-of-possession landlord because it failed to establish it was not contractually obligated to repair the roof, which caused the puddle. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the tenant supermarket because triable issues of fact remained regarding actual or constructive notice of the hazard.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06496/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06496/The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s denial of the claimant’s application for reconsideration and full Board review. The court determined that the claimant failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition, rendering the denial not arbitrary or capricious.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06526/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06526/The court affirmed the grant of contractual indemnification to ABM Security and ABM Onsite against Universal, finding that the Asset Purchase Agreement clearly shifted liability for the security business. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the cross-claim for contribution against Universal because it was found to be free from negligence as a matter of law.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06525/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06525/The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, granting the defendants’ motions and dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence of a triable issue of fact. The court found that the plaintiff’s expert lacked the requisite specialty to opine on the specific care provided, and the plaintiff’s theories were either not properly pled or unsupported by the record.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06494/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06494/The Appellate Division affirmed the revocation of probation and imposition of concurrent four-year prison terms, finding the sentence not harsh or excessive. The court noted that the defendant had been previously warned of incarceration for a second violation and had fled from a traffic stop.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06493/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06493/The appellate court affirmed the convictions for burglary in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, finding the verdict supported by legally sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a missing witness charge and that the defendant received meaningful representation.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06523/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06523/The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s award of attorneys’ fees because the petitioner failed to assert any substantial federal constitutional claim in its CPLR article 78 petition. Since the petitioner only raised federal arguments after judgment in support of the fee motion, the court lacked authority to award fees under 42 USC § 1988.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06492/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06492/The appellate court affirmed the conviction for predatory sexual assault against a child, finding that the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence to establish the element of oral sexual conduct. The court also declined to modify the sentence of 15 years to life in prison, determining it was not unduly harsh or severe.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06522/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06522/The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the petition because documentary evidence proved the landlord had filed the required gas piping inspection certification, rendering the Department of Buildings’ decision not to enforce the law neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court also upheld the denial of discovery regarding the document’s metadata, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate unusual circumstances or an ample need for such disclosure.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06491/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06491/The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the evidence sufficiently proved the defendant was the driver of the vehicle and that the DWI charges were not inclusory concurrent counts of the vehicular assault charges. The court also rejected the defendant’s weight of the evidence challenge and his claims regarding the suppression of pre-Miranda statements.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06521/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06521/The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s judgment to vacate the personal money judgment against the property owner and instead direct foreclosure and sale of the property to satisfy the relocation lien. The court held that the City met its prima facie burden by submitting the relocation lien as proof of expenses, and the owner failed to address the reasonableness of those expenses in opposition.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06490/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06490/The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated by phone records and physical evidence to establish constructive possession of the drugs. Additionally, the court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the phone records under Molineux or in denying the defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without appointing counsel.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06520/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06520/The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s defamation claims as time-barred and dismissed the architectural malpractice and fraud claims due to a lack of privity and justifiable reliance. The court determined that the plaintiff’s prior adversarial litigation against the defendants negated any reasonable reliance on their representations.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06489/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06489/The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the defendant’s admission of a probation violation was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The appellate court determined that the defendant’s claim of coercion was conclusory and unsupported by the record, which showed she acted freely after consulting with counsel.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06519/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06519/The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order compelling the deposition of a defendant named in his official capacity, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the deposition was material and necessary to her claims. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s cross-appeal for lack of aggrievement because the order below was decided in her favor.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06488/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06488/The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aggravated driving while intoxicated and related offenses, and that the warrantless arrest and vehicle search were supported by probable cause. The court further determined that the testimony regarding field sobriety tests was admissible as part of the narrative of events leading to the arrest.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06518/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06518/The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred and that equitable estoppel did not apply due to a lack of due diligence. The court further held that several causes of action, including civil embezzlement and attorneys’ fees, were not recognized as independent claims in New York.Thu, 05 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06485/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06484/https://esqhq.com/decisions/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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06482/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06481/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06480/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06479/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06478/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06477/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06476/https://esqhq.com/decisions/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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06475/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06473/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06472/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06471/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06467/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06466/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06464/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06463/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06462/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06460/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06456/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06455/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06452/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06450/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06448/https://esqhq.com/decisions/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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06445/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06444/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06443/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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%.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06442/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06441/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06440/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06439/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06438/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06437/https://esqhq.com/decisions/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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06436/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06435/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06434/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06433/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06432/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06431/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06430/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06428/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06427/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06426/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06425/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06424/https://esqhq.com/decisions/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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06423/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06422/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06420/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06419/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06418/https://esqhq.com/decisions/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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06417/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06416/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06415/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06414/https://esqhq.com/decisions/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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06413/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06412/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06411/https://esqhq.com/decisions/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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06410/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06409/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06408/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06407/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06406/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06405/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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).Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06404/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06403/https://esqhq.com/decisions/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.Wed, 04 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-26202/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-26202/The court granted Circle’s motion to dismiss, holding that Circle owed no duty of care to the plaintiff absent a prior relationship or court order, and that its inaction did not constitute aiding and abetting. The court denied Uneven Labs’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, finding that the plaintiff made a sufficient start to establish personal jurisdiction to warrant discovery.Mon, 02 Nov 2026 00:00:00 -0500https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06376/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06376/The court granted the attorney’s application for permission to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. Consequently, her name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and she was commanded to desist from the practice of law in the state.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06374/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06374/The court suspended the respondent for three years, finding that her federal felony conviction for health care fraud constituted a serious crime that raised grave concerns about her character and fitness to practice law. The court rejected arguments that the misconduct was less significant because it occurred prior to admission or outside the practice of law, emphasizing the need to protect the public and maintain professional integrity.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06400/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06400/The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, holding that the defamation and tortious interference claims were barred by New York’s anti-SLAPP statute because the underlying email addressed a public interest issue. Additionally, the court found the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the contract and failed to meet the heightened substantial-basis standard required for anti-SLAPP motions.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06371/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06371/The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of foreclosure and sale, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment due to insufficient proof of a reasonable excuse. The court further upheld the confirmation of the referee’s report, rejecting the defendant’s challenges to the evidence and calculations as unsupported by admissible record evidence.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06399/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06399/The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s CPLR 3213 motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint because the service of the notice of motion was defective, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Additionally, the court found that even if jurisdiction existed, the plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment due to unresolved questions of fact regarding the assignment of the note and guaranty.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06370/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06370/The Planning Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in granting site plan approval for a modified project because the changes were in substantial conformance with the original conceptual plan. The Board was authorized to adopt the Town Board’s parking determinations without referring the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals or Code Enforcement Officer.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06398/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06398/The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment because the motion was untimely and lacked a meritorious defense. The court also declined to review a service argument raised for the first time on appeal.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06369/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06369/The Board lacked discretion to excuse the carrier’s failure to serve the pre-hearing conference statement because the governing rule mandates waiver of defenses absent a showing of good cause and good faith. The carrier’s defenses were properly waived because it failed to provide the required affidavit demonstrating that the error was due to good cause and that it exercised due diligence.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06397/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06397/The Family Court properly dismissed the custody petition filed by the biological mother for lack of standing. The court determined that the mother lacked standing because the child had already been placed in the care and custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for adoption purposes prior to the filing of the petition.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06368/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06368/The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order modifying custody to implement a graduated schedule for overnight visits and maintaining travel restrictions. The court found that the father’s inconsistent parenting and transportation issues provided a sound basis for requiring demonstrated reliability before expanding his access to the child.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06396/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06396/The court reinstated the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the warranty of habitability, holding that a tenant’s failure to procure required insurance does not waive statutory rights under Real Property Law § 235-b. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims for breach of the proprietary lease and against the lender, finding the lease terms and loan documents governed those disputes.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06367/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06367/The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the Department of Environmental Conservation, finding that the Green Amendment does not impose a ministerial duty to enforce regulations and that the request for an injunction was not ripe. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the public nuisance claim due to a lack of special injury but allowed the private nuisance claim to proceed.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06395/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06395/The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s personal injury action for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish proper substituted service. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for an extension of time to serve the pleadings due to a lack of reasonably diligent efforts.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06366/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06366/The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, declaring it not obligated to cover the fire because the insured breached the policy’s protective safeguards endorsement by failing to maintain operational smoke detectors in common areas. The court also dismissed the insurer’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against the broker, finding no fiduciary duty and unreasonable reliance, and dismissed the insured’s third-party claims against the broker as moot.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06365/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06365/The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination that the State’s remedial response, centered on the full implementation of the Foundation Aid formula, was rational. The court held that while plaintiffs identified legitimate concerns regarding the formula’s methodology, they failed to demonstrate that the State’s chosen remedy was patently irrational or constitutionally infirm.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06393/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06393/The Appellate Division reversed the permanent stay of arbitration, remanding the matter for a hearing to determine if physical contact occurred and if the 24-hour reporting requirement was met. The court found that conflicting evidence regarding the accident and the reporting compliance necessitated a framed issue hearing rather than a definitive stay.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06364/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06364/The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the state’s use of funds to finance cannabis dispensaries does not conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act. The court determined that the state law does not create a physical impossibility of compliance with federal law nor obstruct Congress’s objectives, as it does not require individuals to engage in federally prohibited conduct.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06392/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06392/The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s award of sole legal and primary physical custody to the mother, finding that the father’s refusal to accept the child’s autism diagnosis and his failure to provide a realistic educational plan were detrimental to the child’s best interests. The court determined that joint custody was inappropriate due to the acrimonious relationship between the parties and the father’s undermining behavior.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06363/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06363/The court affirmed the Family Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the violation petition, holding that the order was appealable as of right because it was dispositional. The dismissal was proper because the petition’s allegations were either moot, duplicative of pending matters, or failed to allege violations of the order of protection.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06391/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06391/The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court also determined that the defendant’s claims regarding the waiver of self-incrimination and speedy trial rights were unpreserved for appellate review.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06362/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06362/The appeal was dismissed as moot because the passage of more than four years since the petitioner’s separation caused his basic training certification to expire by operation of law. Consequently, no relief could be granted to restore his certification or reinstate his status on the central registry.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06390/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06390/The court vacated the specific expiration date of the order of protection because it was calculated without accounting for the defendant’s jail time credit. The matter was remanded for a new determination of the order’s expiration, while the protection itself remained in effect pending that decision.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06361/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06361/The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act because he failed to establish a temporal nexus between the childhood abuse he suffered and the offense committed decades later. Additionally, the court found that the alleged recent abuse by his spouse did not constitute substantial abuse as required by the statute.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06389/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06389/The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant and probable cause to arrest him after he pushed a detective and open warrants were discovered. The court also rejected the defendant’s Batson challenge and his CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence based on recent federal precedent.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06360/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06360/The court held that the defendant’s kidnapping conviction merged with his assault conviction because the restraint and the underlying crime occurred simultaneously as part of a single, uninterrupted episode. Consequently, the kidnapping conviction was reversed and dismissed, while the remaining convictions and sentences were affirmed.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06359/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06359/The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that the trial court properly admitted evidence to establish the time frames of the abuse and did not commit reversible error in limiting cross-examination regarding the victims’ credibility. The court further determined that the sentences were not unduly harsh and the orders of protection were appropriately issued.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06387/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06387/The court reversed the lower court’s order continuing a temporary restraining order and dissolved the TRO because the petitioner participated in the arbitration proceedings, thereby waiving its right to seek a stay under CPLR 7503(b). The court held that the petitioner’s failure to seek judicial relief promptly, despite advice from a federal court, precluded it from avoiding arbitration.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06358/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06358/The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the defendant’s constitutional challenge to his mandatory persistent violent felony offender status was unpreserved because he did not contest his criminal history during the plea colloquy. The court declined to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to review the unpreserved issue.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06357/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06357/The court affirmed the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, finding that the evidence of the defendant’s knowledge and control of the firearm was legally sufficient and supported by the weight of the evidence. The court also upheld the suppression court’s finding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on the defendant’s illegal U-turn and flight from the scene of a shooting.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06385/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06385/The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for interim suspension, finding that uncontroverted evidence of the attorney’s misappropriation of client funds and misrepresentations to the court constituted conduct immediately threatening the public interest. The attorney’s claimed good faith belief in his right to the funds did not controvert the bank records showing the funds were removed from the IOLA account while the dispute remained unresolved.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06356/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06356/The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for attempted murder and robbery, finding the evidence sufficient in weight and rejecting the suppression of GPS ankle monitor data due to the parolee’s reduced expectation of privacy. However, the court vacated the conviction for attempted murder in the second degree as an inclusory concurrent count of the first-degree charge.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06384/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06384/The term ‘funds’ in the insurance policy exclusion includes tuition and fees, but dismissal of the complaint is premature because the underlying class actions seek damages beyond the return of money paid. The insurer’s duty to pay defense costs is triggered because the underlying claims raise the possibility of coverage for other damages.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06355/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06355/The court held that the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because it did not clearly advise that the right to pursue collateral relief survived. Consequently, the court reviewed the sentence for severity but affirmed the judgment, finding the sentence not unduly harsh given it ran concurrently with a longer unrelated sentence.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06383/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06383/The court affirmed the denial of leave to file a late notice of claim because the petitioner failed to prove the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claim or that the City was not prejudiced by the delay. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay, as his claim of incapacity was contradicted by his own affidavit.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06354/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06354/The court affirmed the convictions for criminal obstruction of breathing, aggravated criminal contempt, and first-degree criminal contempt, finding the evidence sufficient and the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for self-representation proper. The court also rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper admission of evidence regarding the defendant’s attempts to lift the order of protection.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06382/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06382/The court dismissed the fraud claims based on financial projections due to a lack of justifiable reliance and adequate due diligence by the sophisticated investor. Additionally, the North Carolina Securities Act claim was dismissed to the extent it relied on financial projections, while the officer’s certificate claim failed for lack of sufficient scienter allegations.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06353/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06353/The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, determining that the defendant’s unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal precluded his Eighth Amendment and youthful offender status challenges. Additionally, the court declined to exercise its power to take corrective action because the defendant failed to preserve his claims regarding the indictment’s jurisdictional defect and the facial constitutionality of the statute.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06379/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06379/CPL 30.30 (6) unambiguously expands appellate review of speedy trial claims to all cases, including those arising from guilty pleas entered before the statute’s effective date. The provision applies to appeals pending when it took effect because it is a procedural and remedial statute that mandates review without reservation.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06352/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06352/The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, finding that the defendant voluntarily consented to the officers’ entry into his motel room. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determination, concluding that the totality of circumstances supported the finding of voluntary consent despite the presence of multiple officers.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06380/https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06380/The trial court properly excluded nonparty invoices from evidence because the plaintiff failed to provide supportive testimony regarding the nonparty’s business practices. Additionally, the court correctly found that the contract did not cover all windows, entitling the defendant to payment for the extra work performed.Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400