New York Law Watch
Week ending January 17, 2026
7 decision records: 3 meet the substance floor; 4 records are held from search listings.
Decision dates in this week run from January 13, 2026 to January 16, 2026, from 6 courts.
Selected decisions
Notice of a jury note’s actual contents satisfies CPL 310.30 even when it is not read verbatim, over a dissent
Holding The court held that the trial court satisfied the meaningful notice requirements of CPL 310.30 by providing counsel with notice of the actual specific contents of the jury notes, even though the notes were read almost verbatim rather than strictly verbatim. Consequently, the court found no mode of proceedings error and affirmed the conviction for attempted murder and assault.
The record reflects that the trial court complied with its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30 by providing counsel with notice of the actual, specific contents of both jury notes.
251 AD3d 109, at the official text
By court
Appellate Division, First Department
- M.T. v Yeshiva Univ.251 AD3d 150
The court held that the Child Victims Act does not violate the Due Process Clause or the Supremacy Clause because final federal judgments dismissing time-barred claims do not create a constitutionally protected vested property right. Consequently, the state legislature may revive time-barred claims without abrogating any vested rights held by the defendants.
- People v Vilella251 AD3d 109
The court held that the trial court satisfied the meaningful notice requirements of CPL 310.30 by providing counsel with notice of the actual specific contents of the jury notes, even though the notes were read almost verbatim rather than strictly verbatim. Consequently, the court found no mode of proceedings error and affirmed the conviction for attempted murder and assault.
Appellate Division, Second Department
- People v Nymeen C.252 AD3d 1
An order dismissing an application for resentencing pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act without prejudice is appealable as of right because it constitutes an order denying resentencing. The court affirmed the dismissal because the defendant failed to provide evidence corroborating that she was a victim of domestic violence at the specific time of the offense.
Also decided
- ENGLERT v RUSSELL 89 Misc 3d 969 January 16, 2026
- Matter of K.J. v S.A. 89 Misc 3d 1000 January 15, 2026
- MTR OF BEELINE.COM v STATE 251 AD3d 143 January 15, 2026
- Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v City of New York 46 NY3d 1 January 13, 2026
Published January 17, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026.