New York Law Watch
Week ending September 19, 2026
126 decision records: 118 meet the substance floor; 8 records are held from search listings.
Decision dates in this week run from September 14, 2026 to September 18, 2026, from 6 courts.
Selected decisions
Penal Law § 450.10 does not let a criminal court try title to Nazi-looted art
Holding The Appellate Division granted the CPLR article 78 petition and vacated the lower court’s turnover orders, holding that Penal Law § 450.10 does not authorize a criminal court to adjudicate disputed property rights in the absence of a pending criminal prosecution. The court determined that because the issue of title was sharply contested, the dispute required resolution in a civil forum with full procedural protections, including the right to a jury trial if demanded.
Penal Law § 450.10 does not provide for adjudication of disputed property rights.
2026 NY Slip Op 05363, at the official text
A preconception agreement found for the second child; standing under Brooke S.B. reversed
Holding The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s determination that a preconception agreement did not exist for the second child, finding that the record supported the existence of such an agreement at the time of conception. Consequently, the non-biological partner established standing to seek parental access, and the matter was remitted for a best interests hearing.
the evidence did not support a determination that the parties' preconception agreement terminated prior to N. E.'s conception
2026 NY Slip Op 05306, at the official text
By court
Appellate Division, First Department
- Matter of Wells Fargo Bank v HBK Master Fund L.P.2026 NY Slip Op 05368
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination that payments of previously deferred principal under HAMP modifications should be treated as Subsequent Recoveries under the Pooling and Servicing Agreements. Although the payments did not fit squarely within the contractual definition, the court held they should be treated as such based on the PSAs’ structure and the parties’ course of performance.
- Hearns v Blended Family LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05367
The court held that a telecommunications worker installing Wi-Fi services is not a covered employee under Public Service Law § 228, but the Labor Law § 240(1) claim was properly dismissed because drilling holes to run cable did not constitute a significant physical alteration of the building. Additionally, the court affirmed conditional contractual indemnification in favor of the property owner against the tenant.
- Delgado v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05366
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss sexual assault and battery claims, finding that the acts constituted discrete torts timely under the Adult Survivor Act. The court modified the decision to dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim only to the extent the underlying acts occurred in Nevada, where they were untimely.
- Matter of Broadway PT 1710 LLC v Kingdom Assoc. Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05365
The Appellate Division reversed the summary discharge of a mechanic’s lien because the petitioner failed to identify any defect appearing on the face of the notice of lien, as required by Lien Law § 19(6). The court held that disputes regarding the validity of the lien, such as lack of consent, must await trial of the foreclosure action rather than being resolved in a summary discharge proceeding.
- Beauchamp v New York City Tr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05364
The court modified the jury verdict to reduce future medical expenses to the amount supported by expert testimony and remanded for a new trial on pain and suffering and loss of services unless plaintiffs stipulated to reduced amounts. The court found the original awards excessive but noted that the reduced total constitutes reasonable compensation for the plaintiff’s extraordinary injuries.
- Matter of Application for a Search Warrant to Search the Premises Located at the Art Inst. of Chicago2026 NY Slip Op 05363
The Appellate Division granted the CPLR article 78 petition and vacated the lower court’s turnover orders, holding that Penal Law § 450.10 does not authorize a criminal court to adjudicate disputed property rights in the absence of a pending criminal prosecution. The court determined that because the issue of title was sharply contested, the dispute required resolution in a civil forum with full procedural protections, including the right to a jury trial if demanded.
Appellate Division, Second Department
- Zeltser v Kukolev2026 NY Slip Op 05353
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims for breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and partition, as they were barred by the statute of frauds or failed to state a cause of action. However, the court affirmed the denial of dismissal for the unjust enrichment counterclaims, finding that the statute of frauds does not preclude quasi-contractual recovery.
- Wright v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05352
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the third-party complaint against the City of New York because the property owners failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the City’s affirmative acts of negligence. The court determined that the City’s failure to respond to service requests for a fire hydrant constituted nonfeasance, not an affirmative act of negligence, and thus did not shift liability from the property owners.
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Hilario2026 NY Slip Op 05351
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish standing under UCC 3-804 regarding a lost note. However, the court modified the lower court’s order to delete the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, finding that no extraordinary circumstances warranted such dismissal.
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Dresdner2026 NY Slip Op 05350
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c). The court held that the plaintiff failed to take proceedings for entry of judgment within one year of default and failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay.
- Williams v Orange County2026 NY Slip Op 05349
The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff did not oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss and therefore is not considered aggrieved under CPLR 5511. The court held that a party is not aggrieved when they ask for relief against them, which they do not oppose, and that relief is granted.
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Curtis2026 NY Slip Op 05348
The court reversed the judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by not proving that at least five of the listed housing counseling agencies served the borrower’s region. The court held that this statutory defect could not be disregarded under CPLR 2001, requiring the denial of summary judgment on the complaint.
- Visco v Riverhead Cent. Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 05347
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a unified trial on liability and damages because they failed to establish that the nature of the injuries was inextricably intertwined with the issue of liability. The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate that their expert’s theory could not be adequately proven during the liability phase of a bifurcated trial.
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v Morrison2026 NY Slip Op 05346
The court held that a plaintiff’s failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale as directed by a prior order was not sufficient grounds for a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Consequently, the lower court’s order dismissing the action without prejudice was reversed and the action was restored to the active calendar.
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v McKenzie2026 NY Slip Op 05345
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to assemble a proper record on appeal. The record was inadequate for meaningful appellate review due to the omission of all relevant papers before the Supreme Court on the cross-motion for leave to renew.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Kotei2026 NY Slip Op 05343
The Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale because the 2017 notice of pendency sufficiently complied with statutory requirements. The plaintiff was entitled to file a successive notice of pendency to comply with RPAPL 1331, even though a prior notice had expired.
- U.S. Bank Trust, National Association, etc., v Edmond Dweck, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05342
The plaintiff failed to establish its standing to commence the action because the purported allonge containing an endorsement in blank was not firmly affixed to the note as required by UCC 3-202(2). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses.
- Tsintsadze v Preziotti2026 NY Slip Op 05341
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the personal injury complaint because the defendants established that the plaintiff’s spinal injuries were degenerative and not caused by the accident. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact because his experts did not address the defendants’ radiologist’s findings in a nonconclusory manner.
- Torres v Frank & Sal, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05340
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the grocery store did not owe a duty to the plaintiff because it lacked the authority to control the third-party tortfeasor after he left the premises and had no special relationship with the plaintiff.
- Steuber v LeBlanc2026 NY Slip Op 05339
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Consequently, the summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed and the complaint was reinstated against the defendants.
- Stella v Doak2026 NY Slip Op 05338
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s declaration that the parties share possession and ownership of two companion dogs. The court upheld the application of the ‘best interest of the companion animal’ standard, noting the defendant did not challenge its use outside of a matrimonial action.
- Sosa v Gonzaga2026 NY Slip Op 05337
The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to comply with the service directives in the order to show cause. Consequently, the order granting the motion was reversed and the motion was denied.
- Sierra v Mount Sinai Health Sys., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05336
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims. The court found that the complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, and the motion was properly denied because it relied on unsupported arguments outside the record.
- Shanahan v County of Rockland2026 NY Slip Op 05335
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s fraud and tortious interference claims, determining that while res judicata did not bar the action, the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The court found the plaintiff failed to allege actual pecuniary loss or justifiable reliance for fraud, and failed to allege malice or improper means for tortious interference.
- Santorelli Builders, LLC v 146 Norris Realty, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05334
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to vacate a default judgment because the plaintiff did not receive actual notice of the scheduled conference. The court held that in the absence of actual notice, a party’s failure to appear is a nullity and vacatur is required as a matter of law.
- Rogoff v Long Is. Univ.2026 NY Slip Op 05333
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract claim because the employment contract did not contain language entitling the plaintiff to the alleged transition terms. The court held that extrinsic evidence of pre-contract conversations could not be considered to interpret the unambiguous contract.
- Ramirez v Red Cloud Trucking, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05332
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting summary judgment on liability because the defendant driver’s affidavit raised triable issues of fact. The defendant provided a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision by alleging the plaintiff driver made a sudden stop without reason.
- Pryce v Nationstar Mtge., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05331
The court reversed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew, finding it timely because no final judgment had been entered. Upon renewal, the court granted summary judgment to cancel the mortgage, holding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act prevented the prior foreclosure discontinuance from resetting the statute of limitations.
- Pires v Daniella Levi & Assoc., P.C.2026 NY Slip Op 05330
The court affirmed the dismissal of the legal malpractice claim against the Ugalde defendants because the engagement letter conclusively limited their representation to workers’ compensation. The court reversed the denial of dismissal against the Levi defendants because the plaintiff failed to plead specific facts showing that their negligence proximately caused the loss of a viable personal injury claim.
- People v Edwards2026 NY Slip Op 05329
The court affirmed the designation of the defendant as a level three sex offender, finding that the County Court properly assessed points for continuous sexual misconduct and substance abuse. The defendant failed to meet the burden of proof required to sustain an application for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level.
- People v Sukram2026 NY Slip Op 05328
The court vacated the defendant’s adjudication as a second violent felony offender and substituted an adjudication as a second felony drug offender, reducing the sentence from 14 years to 8 years of imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the photo array was not unduly suggestive and that the suppression of physical evidence was properly denied or constituted harmless error.
- People v McNeil2026 NY Slip Op 05327
The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court did not improperly shift the burden of proof by directing defense counsel to address the defendant’s identity on cross-examination. Additionally, the court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence was imposed in vindictive retaliation for exercising his right to trial.
- People v Kirton2026 NY Slip Op 05326
The appellate court affirmed the conviction for second-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon, finding that the defendant’s statements were voluntary and the evidence was sufficient. Although the court found an error in admitting a SIM card due to a broken chain of custody, it deemed the error harmless given the overwhelming proof of guilt.
- People v Jorge2026 NY Slip Op 05325
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The court further determined that the defendant’s valid appeal waiver precluded review of grand jury evidence, venue, and duplicitous counts, leaving only jurisdictional and voluntariness challenges, which were meritless.
- People v Harley2026 NY Slip Op 05324
The court vacated the duration of the orders of protection because they exceeded the maximum period permissible under CPL 530.13(4)(A) by failing to credit jail time served. The matter was remitted for a new determination of the duration, while the orders remain in effect pending that determination.
- People v Daley2026 NY Slip Op 05323
The court affirmed the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, finding that the evidence of constructive possession was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The court also held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause and that the defendant failed to demonstrate a legitimate basis for disclosing the confidential informant’s identity.
- Peach, Inc. v RJR Services, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05322
The Appellate Division modified the judgment to reflect the outstanding principal balance of $12,152, holding that the trial court erred in considering extrinsic evidence of an oral agreement to vary the terms of the integrated written instruments. The court applied the parol evidence rule, noting that the promissory note and business purchase agreement were clear, unambiguous, and contained a merger clause.
- Olivares v Andacky2026 NY Slip Op 05321
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because the defendant established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff was negligent for driving across multiple lanes of traffic and that the defendant had only seconds to react, negating any comparative negligence.
- Nunez v Trustees of Columbia Univ.2026 NY Slip Op 05319
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for liability under Labor Law § 240(1) by showing the ladder moved for no apparent reason. The court determined that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion.
- NRT New York, LLC v Bespoke Real Estate, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05318
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint, finding that the claims for breach of contract and fraudulent concealment were barred by collateral estoppel. The court determined that the issues regarding the defendants’ concealment of information were necessarily decided against the plaintiff in a prior action.
- Ninth Street Corp. v Fernandez2026 NY Slip Op 05317
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment because they failed to present a reasonable excuse for their default. Additionally, the defendants did not provide evidence of fraud, mistake, or other grounds warranting the court’s inherent power to relieve them from the judgment.
- Ninth Street Corp. v Fernandez2026 NY Slip Op 05316
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment because they failed to present a reasonable excuse for their default. The court determined that the defendants’ claim that the complaint’s allegations were false constituted intrinsic fraud, which requires both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense.
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Adekoje2026 NY Slip Op 05315
The appellate court reversed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion, holding that the conditional order of dismissal was defective for failing to provide proper statutory notice under CPLR 3216. Additionally, the court vacated the tolling of interest because the plaintiff was denied due process by not being afforded notice or an opportunity to be heard on that issue.
- Matter of Zimbardi v Incorporated Vil. of Manorhaven2026 NY Slip Op 05314
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order granting back pay because the Village failed to demonstrate that the petitioner was in privity with parties to a prior proceeding. Consequently, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar the petitioner’s claim for back pay, entitlements, and benefits.
- Matter of Werner2026 NY Slip Op 05313
The court imposed reciprocal disbarment on the respondent based on his disbarment in Colorado for unauthorized practice of law. The court found that the respondent’s failure to respond to the order to show cause warranted the imposition of the same sanction as the out-of-state discipline.
- Matter of State of New York v Ernest D.2026 NY Slip Op 05312
The court affirmed the lower court’s order revoking the appellant’s release into a strict and intensive supervision and treatment regimen and directing his confinement to a secure treatment facility. The State successfully demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant remained a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement due to his inability to control his sexual behavior.
- Matter of Salvatore v South Country Cent. Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 05311
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the petition to vacate the hearing officer’s determination, finding that the termination of the teaching assistant’s employment was supported by evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. The court held that the penalty was not disproportionate to the misconduct, which involved posting a racially inflammatory message on social media.
- Matter of Newsday, LLC v County of Nassau2026 NY Slip Op 05310
The court held that the County failed to provide particularized justification for denying disclosure of cybersecurity contract details and past public calendars, requiring an in camera inspection to determine redactions. The judgment was modified to direct the production of unredacted records for inspection and remitted the matter for a new determination on fees.
- Matter of McCracken v Whinnery2026 NY Slip Op 05309
The court modified the lower court’s judgment by deleting the provision directing retroactive benefits, affirming the annulment of the Board’s denial, and remitting the matter for new medical findings. The Medical Board failed to adequately explain its reasoning regarding the petitioner’s ability to perform specific job duties, and the record remained unclear on whether he was permanently incapacitated.
- Matter of Hillside Place, LLC v Housing & Community Renewal of the State of N.Y.2026 NY Slip Op 05308
The Appellate Division held that a prior order granting leave to amend pleadings to include rent increase claims was not law of the case because it did not resolve the merits. Consequently, the DHCR’s determination to remove the $45 per month rent increase was upheld as having a rational basis and not being arbitrary or capricious.
- Matter of Dopkin v County of Nassau2026 NY Slip Op 05307
The Commission’s determination was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to provide a factual basis for reaching a different result than it did for similarly situated candidates. The court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for the Commission to articulate reasons for its decision.
- Matter of Kelly C. v Chaya E.2026 NY Slip Op 05306
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s determination that a preconception agreement did not exist for the second child, finding that the record supported the existence of such an agreement at the time of conception. Consequently, the non-biological partner established standing to seek parental access, and the matter was remitted for a best interests hearing.
- Matter of Borochov2026 NY Slip Op 05305
The court imposed reciprocal public censure on the respondent for professional misconduct, rejecting his argument that the conduct did not constitute misconduct in New York. The court found that the respondent’s admitted criminal act and failure to disclose his arrest to the Illinois Bar were also violations of New York professional conduct rules.
- Merchant Cash & Capital, LLC v Blueshyft, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05304
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order imposing a sanction on nonparty Mark Yosef, finding that his conduct as counsel was not frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c). Consequently, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding costs and attorney’s fees against Yosef.
- Mees v Buiter2026 NY Slip Op 05303
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew her opposition to the dismissal of her complaint because she failed to demonstrate new facts or provide reasonable justification for her delay. Additionally, the court denied the motion to vacate the prior order under CPLR 5015(a)(3) due to an unreasonable delay and a failure to establish fraud or misconduct.
- Marchand v NPL Consulting Servs., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05302
The court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims because the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege justifiable reliance, as the plaintiff was an experienced businessperson who did not conduct due diligence. The court also dismissed the General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims because the complaint alleged a private contract dispute rather than consumer-oriented conduct.
- Macri v Fluor Enters., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05301
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to Certa Pro, IBM, and Fluor Enterprises, finding that the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the defendants negligently created a dangerous condition by installing two visually identical walking surfaces without a warning. The court held that while the defendants established they did not know the flooring was slippery, the plaintiff’s expert evidence regarding improper application and lack of visual distinction precluded summary judgment.
- Lori Joseph Builders, Inc. v Torres2026 NY Slip Op 05300
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant was not personally liable for payment under the contracts and that the agreements were unenforceable due to indefiniteness. The court also held that the plaintiff could not recover in quantum meruit for lack of evidence regarding the reasonable value of services.
- Levine v Stellar 341, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05299
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts supporting claims for adverse possession and the doctrine of practical location. The evidence submitted by the defendant did not constitute documentary evidence sufficient to utterly refute the plaintiffs’ factual allegations.
- Lenihan v Muhametja2026 NY Slip Op 05298
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the fraud claim, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the defendants actively concealed property defects. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim because the plaintiffs failed to identify any contractual provision that survived the merger of the deed.
- Lawless v LIDL US, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05297
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s personal injury claim, finding that the defendants established the hazardous condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the visibility and danger of the wooden pallet.
- King v Kohn2026 NY Slip Op 05296
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against defendant Gluck, holding that the fraud allegations were duplicative of the breach of contract claims and that civil conspiracy is not an independent cause of action. Additionally, the court affirmed the vacatur of the notice of pendency because the complaint did not seek relief affecting title or possession of real property.
- Khodjaeva v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05295
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of liability in a chain-collision accident by demonstrating their vehicle was stopped when struck from behind. The court held that the defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision or evidence supporting their affirmative defenses of comparative negligence and assumption of risk.
- Joseph Onorato, M.D., P.C. v Bruck2026 NY Slip Op 05294
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because the defendants, as policyholders, did not assign their rights to the demutualization proceeds. The court further granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, declaring that the plaintiff is not entitled to the proceeds from the insurance company’s conversion to a stock company.
- Jones v New York City Hous. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05293
The court reversed the dismissal of the complaint because the defendant failed to reschedule the oral examination after the plaintiff’s counsel postponed it indefinitely. Under General Municipal Law § 50-h, the municipality has an obligation to reschedule the examination for the earliest possible date if it is postponed beyond the ninety-day period.
- Jacobs v March Constr./Consulting2026 NY Slip Op 05292
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) claims because the defendants raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of her injuries. The court found that evidence of a marked, secured cover and instructions not to touch construction material were sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s prima facie showing of liability.
- HSBC Bank USA, National Association, etc., v Joslet Foster, et al., defendants, CitiMortgage, Inc., respondent2026 NY Slip Op 05291
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against CitiMortgage as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c) because the plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in seeking a default judgment. The court found that the plaintiff’s explanations regarding stays and separate litigation were insufficient to account for years of inactivity.
- Houghton v Piperaro2026 NY Slip Op 05290
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting defendants’ motions to preclude evidence under CPLR 3126. The court held that the defendants failed to make a clear showing that the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with discovery demands was willful or contumacious.
- Hassane v Elbakry2026 NY Slip Op 05289
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant because the defendant failed to meet the prima facie burden of showing the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on liability on the merits, finding that triable issues of fact remained regarding the cause of the accident and the applicability of the emergency doctrine.
- J. H., etc., et al., appellants, v South Country Central School District, et al., respondents.2026 NY Slip Op 05288
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint, holding that the school district provided adequate supervision and that the injury was not proximately caused by any lack of supervision. The court determined that the accident occurred in such a short span of time that even intense supervision could not have prevented it.
- Savannah Grey v William J. Grey, Sr.2026 NY Slip Op 05287
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff’s causes of action sufficiently stated viable claims for common-law intentional torts. The court determined that the allegations, liberally construed, fit within cognizable legal theories for sexual abuse, sexual assault, assault, and battery.
- Greene v Five Towns Premier Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr.2026 NY Slip Op 05286
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice, holding that a dismissal for lack of capacity to sue does not preclude the plaintiff from utilizing the six-month savings period under CPLR 205(a). The court determined that there is no restriction on the number of times a plaintiff may qualify for this statutory grace period when the prior dismissal was based solely on the failure to obtain letters of administration.
- Grannum v Tanais’s Deli Grocery Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 05285
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because she failed to establish prima facie that the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk defect. The expert’s reliance on Google Maps images without visiting the site was deemed insufficient to demonstrate constructive notice.
- Ford v Montclair Care Ctr., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05284
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss, granting the defendants’ motion under CPLR 3211(a). The court held that the defendants were immune from liability under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because they provided health care services in good faith in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
- Foley v Foley2026 NY Slip Op 05283
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order holding the defendants in civil contempt for failing to pay a distributive award, as the defendants failed to refute the plaintiff’s showing of noncompliance with a clear and unequivocal mandate. The court declined to consider issues raised on the appeal that could have been raised in a previously dismissed cross-appeal.
- Fata v Garnet Health Med. Ctr.2026 NY Slip Op 05282
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the alleged conduct did not meet the legal standard for extreme and outrageous behavior. The court determined that the conduct was not so egregious as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized community.
- Estate of Vivien Boninti, etc., appellant, v South Shore Rehabilitation, LLC, etc., respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05281
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, holding that the defendant failed to conclusively establish that the conditions for immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act were satisfied. The court determined that the defendant’s submissions, which lacked evidence regarding the specific treatment of the decedent, were insufficient to warrant dismissal on the law.
- Ditech Financial, LLC v Rapuzzi2026 NY Slip Op 05280
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action because the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with RPAPL 1304 by mailing the required notice less than 90 days before commencing the action. The defendant’s cross-appeal was dismissed because he was not aggrieved by the order that granted his motion for summary judgment.
- Ditech Financial, LLC v Epstein2026 NY Slip Op 05279
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the nonparty’s motion to vacate a prior order because the nonparty failed to demonstrate a basis for relief under CPLR 5015(a). Additionally, the nonparty did not provide evidence of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect necessary to warrant vacatur in the interests of substantial justice.
- Ditech Fin., LLC v Epstein2026 NY Slip Op 05278
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action because the statute of limitations had expired, as the discontinuance of a prior 2007 action did not de-accelerate the mortgage debt. The court held that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) was properly applied retroactively to bar the claim.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Han Yang Cho2026 NY Slip Op 05277
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a sua sponte dismissal order, finding that the dismissal was improper and that the plaintiff was not required to move for leave to renew. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment and an order of reference, as the plaintiff made the requisite showing and the defendant’s opposition was insufficient to defeat the presumption of proper service.
- Cywiak v Packman2026 NY Slip Op 05276
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the divorce complaint because a prior stipulation filed with the court constituted documentary evidence that utterly refuted the plaintiff’s allegation of a valid marriage. The court further held that the plaintiff failed to establish any basis to vacate the stipulation.
- Cruz v 2742 Fulton, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05275
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendant because it failed to establish ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property. The defendant demonstrated that it did not own the abutting property and did not cause the sidewalk defect through its construction activities.
- Conti v Marino2026 NY Slip Op 05274
The court affirmed the dismissal of fraud claims as time-barred because the plaintiff failed to commence the action within the statutory limitations period. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of quiet title claims based on the plaintiff’s failure to raise the standing argument in the main brief.
- Cole v Shorter2026 NY Slip Op 05273
The court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint, holding that the defendant’s conclusory and unsubstantiated affidavit denying residence at the service address was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit. Consequently, the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was properly denied.
- Clarke v Spino2026 NY Slip Op 05272
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for specific performance and breach of contract, finding that the documentary evidence conclusively established that the sellers were ready, willing, and able to perform. The court further held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a return of their down payment, which was properly released to the sellers as liquidated damages.
- Civetta Mechanical, LLC v AWL Industries, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05271
The court affirmed the denial of dismissal for breach of contract and implied covenant claims, finding sufficient allegations of mutual assent. However, it reversed the denial of dismissal for unjust enrichment, third-party beneficiary, and General Municipal Law § 101(5) claims, finding them legally insufficient.
- Brandford v Brandford2026 NY Slip Op 05270
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order holding the plaintiff in civil contempt for willfully failing to pay child support arrears and an equitable distribution award. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate financial inability to comply with the court orders, thereby justifying the contempt findings and associated incarceration directives.
- Branch v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05269
The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the abutting property owners because they had no duty to maintain the city-owned tree well. The defendants successfully demonstrated they did not create the dangerous condition, negligently repair the area, or cause the condition through special use.
- Blade Funding, LLC v Build Retail, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05268
The court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to vacate a clerk’s judgment, finding that a minor error in the plaintiff’s name did not prejudice the defendants and that the court had subject matter jurisdiction under General Obligations Law § 5-1402. The court further held that the transaction constituted a purchase of future receivables rather than a usurious loan because repayment was contingent on the merchant’s receipts.
- Bellavia v Hoppenstein2026 NY Slip Op 05267
The court affirmed the denial of a motion to change venue because the defendant failed to demonstrate witness inconvenience, and it affirmed the dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaims for abuse of process, injunctive relief, and libel. Although the lower court improperly relied on a nonconforming affirmation, the dismissal was proper because the counterclaims failed to state causes of action.
- Bautista v Supervalu, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05266
The court affirmed the dismissal of the personal injury action, finding that the defendants established the hazardous condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as their expert’s opposition was deemed speculative and conclusory.
- Batista v Allerton Ave Estates, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05265
The defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because they did not eliminate triable issues of fact regarding whether the icy condition resulted from a prior storm or if the defendants had constructive notice of the pre-existing condition. Consequently, the lower court’s order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed.
- Barnard v Barnard2026 NY Slip Op 05264
The judgment of divorce was modified to award the defendant a 50% share of the plaintiff’s savings and checking accounts and to delete the retroactive child support award pending recalculation with appropriate credits for mortgage payments. The appellate court affirmed the maintenance award and counsel fees as a provident exercise of discretion.
- Bank of New York Mellon, etc., respondent, v Patricia L. Conforti, etc., defendants, 35 Pleasure, LLC, appellant.2026 NY Slip Op 05262
The Appellate Division reversed the foreclosure judgment, holding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) constituted a change in the law that allowed the defendant to renew its motion for summary judgment. The court determined that the voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action did not de-accelerate the mortgage debt under FAPA, rendering the current action untimely under the six-year statute of limitations.
- Alvarez v 100-10 67th Rd. Condominium2026 NY Slip Op 05261
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order by substituting an adverse inference charge for the preclusion of the defendants’ liability defense. The court found that while the defendants were negligent in failing to preserve surveillance video, the harsher sanction of precluding their defense was an improvident exercise of discretion.
- Alam v Uber Tech., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05260
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident. Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to explain any gap in treatment, and triable issues of fact remained regarding serious injury.
- Abdelrahman v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05259
The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint against all defendants because they established that no dangerous condition existed. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and his expert’s affidavit was deemed speculative and insufficient to defeat the motion.
- 90 Chicken Corp. v 90 Jericho Realty Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 05258
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of specific performance and award of nominal damages, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove lost future profits with reasonable certainty. The court determined that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendant was able to deliver the property or that there was no adequate remedy at law.
- Matter of Mitchell v NYC Bd. of Elections2026 NY Slip Op 05257
The court affirmed the denial of the petition to validate an independent nominating petition because the petitioner failed to strictly comply with Election Law § 6-140(1)(a) by omitting the name of the independent body. The court determined that this omission constituted a fundamental flaw rather than a de minimis scrivener’s error, rendering the petition invalid.
- Matter of Hansen v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections2026 NY Slip Op 05256
The hybrid proceeding and action were dismissed because the petitioner failed to institute the proceeding within the statutory time limitations set forth in Election Law article 16. The court found that the proceeding was not promptly instituted after the petitioner had notice of the Board’s determination invalidating the designating petition.
Appellate Division, Third Department
- Matter of Stein2026 NY Slip Op 05362
The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion to discipline the respondent for misconduct committed in Tennessee, finding that the respondent waived affirmative defenses by failing to respond. The court imposed a seven-month suspension, citing aggravating factors including prior disciplinary history, failure to report out-of-state discipline, and biennial registration delinquency.
- Matter of Gellene2026 NY Slip Op 05361
The court suspended the respondent attorney for one year based on his established misconduct in New Jersey, which violated New York professional conduct rules. The court found that the respondent’s failure to respond to the motion waived his defenses and that his disregard for his professional obligations warranted suspension.
- Matter of Lorenz v DiNapoli2026 NY Slip Op 05360
The court confirmed the denial of World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits, finding that the respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties, relying on the opinion of the system’s psychiatrist over the petitioner’s psychologist.
- Matter of Alexander v New York City Dept. of Homeless Servs.2026 NY Slip Op 05358
The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a permanent total disability, finding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that he was capable of performing sedentary work. The court also upheld the Board’s denial of the claimant’s application for reconsideration, determining that the claimant failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition.
- Matter of Rosario v William Carter Co.2026 NY Slip Op 05357
The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that the claimant sustained accidental injuries to her left foot and knee arising out of and in the course of her employment. The court found that substantial evidence, including surveillance video and medical testimony, supported the Board’s findings and its resolution of conflicting medical opinions.
- Matter of Reid v Gardner2026 NY Slip Op 05356
The court confirmed the denial of the petitioner’s applications for performance of duty and accidental disability retirement benefits because he failed to prove he was permanently incapacitated from performing his light duty work. The medical evidence, including testimony from a neurologist and reports from other specialists, contradicted the petitioner’s claims of permanent disability.
Appellate Term, Second Department
- Health Value Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.2026 NY Slip Op 51594[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s order vacating a judgment because the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating it had not received a release or stipulation of discontinuance. Consequently, the plaintiff was not required to prove it had tendered those documents in opposition to the motion.
- J & GS Restoration, Inc. v Metro Contrs., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51593[U]
The Appellate Term modified the judgment to increase the award to $2,850 to account for the undisputed $50 balance on the first project, while affirming the trial court’s credibility determination regarding the second project. The court found that substantial justice required the adjustment based on the parties’ agreement regarding payments made.
- Tibta v 156 E. 21, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51592[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s order holding the landlord in civil contempt because the petitioner failed to establish that the landlord violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court. The court found that the original judgment did not explicitly obligate the landlord to facilitate the removal of the new tenant, nor did the landlord create impediments to the execution of the warrant of eviction.
- Discover Bank v Lewis2026 NY Slip Op 51590[U]
The court reversed the lower court’s order and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of service by proving he did not reside at the address where process was served.
- Midwood Metropolitan Medical, P.C. v Permanent General Assurance Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 51589[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s order vacating a default judgment because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default. The court held that the defendant’s claim of non-receipt was insufficient to overcome the prima facie evidence of proper service on its registered agent.
- 148 Ave. 2018 Prop., LLC v Williams2026 NY Slip Op 51587[U]
The Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the title dispute as a defense to the summary proceeding, and the petitioner’s recorded deed established superior title to the respondent’s unrecorded deed. Additionally, the respondent was judicially estopped from denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship because he had previously used the lease to defend other proceedings.
- Kings Ct. Hous., LLC v Dehoney2026 NY Slip Op 51586[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s denial of the tenant’s motion to vacate a default judgment in a nonpayment proceeding. The court found the rent demand facially insufficient because it relied on an unexplained and confusing ledger, failing to fairly apprise the tenant of the rent owed.
- Phillip v Leman Manhattan Preparatory Sch.2026 NY Slip Op 51585[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s dismissal, finding that the private school breached the enrollment contract by refusing admission based on an extra-contractual vaccination requirement to which the parent had not consented. Consequently, the contractual prohibition against refunds was inapplicable, and the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the tuition paid.
- Balalaos v Bernstein2026 NY Slip Op 51584[U]
The court reversed the lower court’s judgment because the plaintiff, an unlicensed home improvement contractor, is barred from recovering payment for work performed. The court held that the plaintiff’s use of licensed subcontractors did not cure the lack of a personal license required by law.
- Shetty v ACEA Consulting Group, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51583[U]
The Appellate Term reversed the lower court’s judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish her performance under the contract by providing necessary financial details. Additionally, the court found that the lower court’s award of $3,000 lacked any basis in the record or explanation.
Trial courts
- State of New York v UnitedHealthcare of N.Y., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 51551[U]
The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims, finding that while the claims relate to ERISA plans, the defendants failed to prove that all claims are subject to express preemption. The court dismissed the unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment causes of action as redundant or duplicative of the contract claim.
Also decided
- De Filippis v Lenox Hill Radiology & Med. Imaging Assoc., P.C. 2026 NY Slip Op 51591[U] September 18, 2026
- Grand Plus Supply, Inc. v GEICO Indem. Co. 2026 NY Slip Op 51588[U] September 18, 2026
- Matter of Schachter (Commissioner of Labor) 2026 NY Slip Op 05359 September 17, 2026
- In the Matter of the Hon. Frank M. Mora, a Judge of the Poughkeepsie City Court, Dutchess County 2026 NY Slip Op 05355 September 17, 2026
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Nii Badu Kotei 2026 NY Slip Op 05344 September 16, 2026
- NYCTL 2011-A Trust v 249 Brighton Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 05320 September 16, 2026
- Bank of New York Mellon v Pryce 2026 NY Slip Op 05263 September 16, 2026
- People ex rel. Elman v Richards 2026 NY Slip Op 05354 September 16, 2026
Published September 19, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026.