New York Law Watch
Week ending October 17, 2026
164 decision records: 126 meet the substance floor; 38 records are held from search listings.
Decision dates in this week run from October 13, 2026 to October 15, 2026, from 5 courts.
By court
Appellate Division, First Department
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v David Lopez, Jr., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.2026 NY Slip Op 06037
A property owner who is not the original borrower lacks standing to raise defenses based on the lender’s failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 or contractual pre-foreclosure notice requirements. Such defenses are personal to the original borrower and cannot be asserted by a transferee or heir who is a stranger to the note and mortgage.
- Waterworks Operating Co., LLC v 514 W. 24th Owner LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06036
The court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings on damages because the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing delivery of all materials required by the contract. The court held that evidence submitted in reply papers without an opportunity for rebuttal must be disregarded.
- Sowah v Oueteouakam2026 NY Slip Op 06035
The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious injury to her cervical and lumbar spine under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiff’s experts did not sufficiently address or rule out the chronic, degenerative changes identified by the defendant’s expert radiologist as the cause of her symptoms.
- Sarante v Courtlandt Dev. LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06034
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion to compel a further deposition of the plaintiff after the note of issue was filed. The court found that defendants failed to demonstrate unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting post-note of issue discovery based on unproven allegations in unrelated actions.
- RBL Bank Limited v Veria Lifestyle Inc., et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06033
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the foreign bank’s sporadic dealings did not constitute doing business in New York, thus exempting it from registration requirements. Additionally, the defendants waived the Banking Law defense by failing to plead it initially and by not appealing the denial of their motion to amend.
- Matter of S.R. v E.C.2026 NY Slip Op 06032
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the mother’s petition to modify custody because her testimony failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances. Obtaining a larger apartment and growing closer to the children did not establish a need to alter the existing custody arrangement for the children’s best interests.
- People v Burton2026 NY Slip Op 06027
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting the defendant’s claim that a minor overstatement of his maximum potential penalty rendered his guilty plea involuntary. However, the court vacated the surcharges and fees imposed at sentencing as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice.
- People v James2026 NY Slip Op 06026
The conviction for disorderly conduct was affirmed because the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence, particularly regarding the defendant’s aggressive confrontation with police. The court rejected the defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct and Brady violations, finding them unpreserved or unsupported by the record.
- People v Canty2026 NY Slip Op 06025
The Appellate Division affirmed the SORA court’s decision to adjudicate the defendant a level two sexually violent offender, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a downward departure. The court determined that the defendant’s treatment participation and other mitigating factors did not outweigh the egregiousness of the underlying offenses.
- People v Williams2026 NY Slip Op 06024
The court affirmed the conviction, noting that the defendant validly waived his right to appeal, which forecloses review of the suppression decision. Alternatively, the court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search because he had no expectation of privacy in the apartment.
- People v Ortega2026 NY Slip Op 06022
The court affirmed the judgment and declined to review unpreserved challenges to probation conditions, finding them reasonably necessary and appropriate given the defendant’s history of substance abuse and the victim’s order of protection. The court also denied the request to modify the jurisdictional condition to allow visits to the defendant’s son, who lives with the protected victim.
- People v Tracey2026 NY Slip Op 06021
The court modified the judgment to vacate the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed on the defendant at sentencing. This relief was granted based on the court’s own interest of justice powers, noting that the People did not oppose the action.
- People v Henriques2026 NY Slip Op 06019
The conviction was affirmed because the defendant was not deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury, as the prosecutor offered a new grand jury and voted on remaining counts after the defendant declined to testify. Additionally, the defendant waived his challenge to the jury instructions by explicitly approving them and failing to object, and the court found no basis to reduce the sentence.
- Parker v 66 St. Nicholas Place, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06016
The court modified the lower court’s order to direct the joinder of the new owner as a defendant rather than substituting them for the former owner. This modification was necessary because substitution would prejudice the plaintiff by requiring discovery from a nonparty regarding the prior owner’s willful conduct.
- Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc. v 29 W. 19 Condominium2026 NY Slip Op 06015
The Supreme Court properly awarded attorneys’ fees to the respondent under RPAPL 881, as the American rule does not preclude such awards to respondents who are haled into court for the petitioner’s sole benefit. A prevailing party determination is not required for these fee awards, and recent statutory amendments do not affect the court’s discretion in this regard.
- Matter of Sokolski2026 NY Slip Op 06014
The court affirmed the finding of professional misconduct for failure to maintain bookkeeping records, rejecting the argument that rule 1.15(d) applies only to the attorney who personally conducts transactions. The court imposed a three-month suspension, determining that the respondent’s prolonged neglect of fiduciary duties despite warning signs warranted a sanction more severe than the recommended public censure.
- Matter of McCollum2026 NY Slip Op 06013
The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for interim suspension, finding that the respondent’s sworn admissions of professional misconduct and her persistent failure to comply with lawful demands warranted immediate suspension. The court determined that the respondent’s lack of cooperation and failure to substantiate claimed health issues supported the finding of conduct immediately threatening the public interest.
- Matter of J.M. v N.R.2026 NY Slip Op 06012
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s orders awarding the fathers sole legal and physical custody of the children, finding the decision had a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court determined that the fathers were better able to provide a stable home and that joint custody was inappropriate due to mistrust and lack of communication between the parents.
- Lee v Zeitlin2026 NY Slip Op 06010
The court affirmed summary judgment for plaintiffs on breach of contract and account stated claims, finding defendants failed to fulfill contractual obligations without valid offset or mitigation defenses. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment on defendants’ counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as premature due to pending discovery.
- Latazela v Compass Six Owner LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06009
The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding that the plaintiff’s fall from a moving scaffold without proper anchor points or guardrails established a prima facie case. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries or that expert biomechanical evidence raised a triable issue of fact.
- Matter of Ak.D.L.M. (J.J.M.)2026 NY Slip Op 06008
The Appellate Division affirmed the termination of the father’s parental rights based on a finding of permanent neglect, supported by clear and convincing evidence that he failed to plan for the children’s future. The court noted that the father failed to consistently visit or complete necessary services despite the agency’s diligent efforts to facilitate his service plan.
- Kocher v Mount Sinai Hosp.2026 NY Slip Op 06007
The court granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the City HRL claim for failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue, while denying both parties’ summary judgment motions on the reasonable accommodation claims under both the State and City HRLs.
- Matter of A.K. v P.C.2026 NY Slip Op 06005
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s award of sole legal and physical custody to the mother, finding that visitation with the father was not in the child’s best interests due to prior family offenses and the father’s lack of accountability. The court also noted that the child’s expressed wish against visitation was properly considered as a factor in the best interests analysis.
- Matter of S.N.C. also known as S.N.G. An Alleged Incapacitated Person v Michael Goldman2026 NY Slip Op 06004
The Appellate Division affirmed the revocation of a power of attorney because the agents breached their fiduciary duties by paying themselves without proper documentation and mismanaging the incapacitated person’s accounts. The court rejected the argument that the power of attorney remained valid solely because the principal was competent when it was executed, citing statutory language to the contrary.
- Hall v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.2026 NY Slip Op 06003
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s protective order limiting the third-party observer at the plaintiff’s neuropsychological examination to a licensed clinical psychologist. The court found that the presence of the plaintiff’s attorney would prevent the expert from conducting a meaningful examination.
- Gonzalez v Country Manor Apts.2026 NY Slip Op 06002
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s amended complaint because the statute of limitations had expired before the actual property owners were joined as parties. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve process due to a lack of reasonably diligent efforts to identify the correct defendants.
- Matter of Guralny2026 NY Slip Op 06001
The court affirmed the lower court’s order declaring the lifetime trust null and void because no assets were transferred to it during the decedent’s life. Consequently, the estate must be distributed pursuant to intestacy laws rather than the trust’s directives.
- Dalessandro v Dalessandro2026 NY Slip Op 06000
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion for leave to serve a late answer, finding that the delay was short, caused by reasonable law office failure, and did not prejudice the plaintiff. The court emphasized the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits.
- City of New York v Heritage Health & Hous., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05998
The court affirmed the denial of motions to dismiss, determining that the agreements at issue were licenses rather than leases because they contained broad termination rights and prohibited assignment. Consequently, the defendants were not entitled to the notice requirements applicable to terminating a tenancy.
- BFAM Asian Opportunities Master Fund, LP v Glory Health Indus. Ltd.2026 NY Slip Op 05997
Beneficial owners of notes held through a clearing system have standing to sue based on STAC letters and clearing policies, even if not direct holders. A Chinese law making performance impossible does not excuse performance under a New York law-governed contract lacking a force majeure clause.
- Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Papailias2026 NY Slip Op 05922
The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff adequately established the defendant’s default, compliance with statutory notice requirements, and standing. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the defendant’s affirmative defenses, deeming them refuted, conclusory, or abandoned.
- Vera v BH Broadway Owner LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05921
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the Dram Shop Act claim as asserted by the plaintiff in her individual capacity for loss of support. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the claim insofar as it was asserted on behalf of the decedent’s estate, as the statute does not allow the intoxicated person or their estate to sue for injuries resulting from their own intoxication.
- People v Soto2026 NY Slip Op 05918
The court modified the judgment to vacate the specific expiration date of the order of protection because it was incorrectly calculated based on the wrong conviction and without accounting for jail time credit. The matter was remanded for a new determination of the order’s duration, while the order itself remains in effect pending that determination.
- People v Anaya2026 NY Slip Op 05913
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s petition to modify his sex offender classification, finding that mitigating factors were outweighed by the seriousness of the offense and recidivism. The defendant failed to establish that his age, health, or family support reduced his likelihood of reoffense.
- Mitchell v Pullman SST, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05912
The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that the plaintiff’s injury resulted from efforts to prevent a heavy beam from falling, which constitutes a covered gravity-related risk. The court also rejected the defendants’ sole proximate cause defense, determining that the plaintiff’s instruction to stop lifting was consistent with established company practice.
- Jacober v Madan2026 NY Slip Op 05911
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims, finding that the complaint failed to plead fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation with sufficient particularity and that the transaction was not consumer-oriented under General Business Law § 349. Consequently, the claim against MassMutual based on respondeat superior also failed because the underlying claims against the brokers were properly dismissed.
- Matter of J.J. (M.D.)2026 NY Slip Op 05910
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s summary judgment finding that the mother neglected the children by behaving aggressively and waving a lighter near an oxygen tank in their presence. The court also held that the change of permanency goal to adoption was not properly before the court or was moot, and found no basis to disturb the best interest determination.
- Iken v Bohemian Brethren Presbyt. Church2026 NY Slip Op 05909
The Appellate Division affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages to a tenant for a landlord’s breach of lease duties to clear building violations and install a fire alarm system, which prevented the tenant from operating a preschool. The court rejected the landlord’s arguments that the rent abatement was the exclusive remedy and that the lost profits were speculative or barred by a lease provision limiting recovery to the building’s estate.
- Ho v Star Contrs., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05908
The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim, finding that the defendants repudiated the contract by demanding additional payment and abandoning the project. Additionally, the court reversed the lower court’s decision to preclude plaintiffs from testifying at trial, deeming the sanction an improvident exercise of discretion.
- Goldberg v Rozenberg2026 NY Slip Op 05907
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by the absolute litigation privilege because they were made in the course of litigation and were pertinent to the proceedings. The court further held that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and that dismissal with prejudice was proper because the plaintiff did not request leave to amend.
- Matter of C.J.C. (O.G.)2026 NY Slip Op 05906
The Appellate Division affirmed the termination of the mother’s parental rights, finding that clear and convincing evidence established her mental illness prevented her from caring for the child. The court held that the expert’s opinion was competent despite the lack of direct observation of the mother-child interaction or recent medical records.
- De Souza v 4720 Third Ave LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05905
The court granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that he fell from an unsecured ladder and that his alleged negligence did not bar recovery. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim as academic in light of the summary judgment determination on the § 240(1) claim.
- Castleman v Interactive Brokers LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05904
The in pari delicto doctrine bars a federal equity receiver from suing a third party for negligence or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty because the receiver stands in the shoes of the wrongdoing corporation. The adverse interest exception does not apply because the wrongdoer was the sole owner of the entity at the time of the misconduct.
- C.P. v D.M.2026 NY Slip Op 05903
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s award of interim post-judgment counsel fees because the record lacked a required determination that the defendant was the less monied spouse. Additionally, the court vacated the order requiring the plaintiff to pay fifty percent of the forensic evaluator’s retainer, finding no substantially changed circumstances to justify the expense.
- Cutter v Bayard’s Ale House2026 NY Slip Op 05902
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to an out-of-possession landlord because the lease granted a right of reentry for repairs and the plaintiff raised factual issues regarding specific statutory design safety violations. Additionally, the landlord’s cross-claim for contractual indemnification was properly denied because the tenant’s liability had not yet been established to trigger the indemnification duty.
- Alterman v Alterman2026 NY Slip Op 05901
The Supreme Court properly awarded a charging lien to the law firm because the defendant failed to demonstrate attorney misconduct or timely object to the fees. The court also correctly retained jurisdiction to determine the lien despite the husband’s death because the defendant’s right to a distributive award had already vested.
Appellate Division, Second Department
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Begum2026 NY Slip Op 05996
The judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed because the plaintiff established standing and compliance with RPAPL 1303 notice requirements. The appellant’s objections to the referee’s report were deemed untimely, and her remaining arguments were either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit.
- Wardi v Alexim Holdings, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05995
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(4) because a separate action between the same parties for the same cause of action was already pending. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ action was not considered pending for this purpose because their complaint was not filed and served until after the defendant’s complaint in the separate action.
- Vashovsky v Zablocki2026 NY Slip Op 05994
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the motion to vacate the receiver’s commission, finding that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in awarding a commission of $425,000. The court determined that the awarded amount was less than the statutory maximum of five percent and was reasonable based on the specific circumstances of the case.
- Vashovsky v Zablocki2026 NY Slip Op 05993
The appellate court reversed the lower court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, granting dismissal of the causes of action for interference with a prospective economic advantage. The court held that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the defendants’ actions were meant solely to harm the plaintiff or constituted wrongful means.
- Vashovsky v Zablocki2026 NY Slip Op 05992
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert RICO and fraud claims because the proposed causes of action were palpably insufficient. Additionally, the court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their breach of contract counterclaim because the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding waiver.
- US Bank National Association, etc., respondent, v Jason Vento, appellant, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05991
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s confirmation of the referee’s report because the referee failed to identify documents or sources supporting the finding that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel. The matter was remitted for a new determination regarding whether the property can be sold in parcels.
- U.S. Bank, NA v Lang2026 NY Slip Op 05990
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred because the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) replaced the CPLR 205(a) savings provision with CPLR 205-a, which does not apply to prior actions dismissed as abandoned. Consequently, the plaintiff could not rely on the six-month savings provision to toll the statute of limitations for the new action.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Fulford2026 NY Slip Op 05989
The appeal from the foreclosure judgment was dismissed because no appeal lies from a judgment granted upon the default of the appealing party. The motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied because the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default, which is required to vacate a default based on intrinsic fraud.
- Tymoshenko v Levitansky2026 NY Slip Op 05988
The court reversed the lower court’s order, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint because it contained no factual allegations against her. The court also denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint because the relation-back doctrine was inapplicable and the new claims were time-barred.
- Tullis v City of Yonkers2026 NY Slip Op 05987
The court affirmed the dismissal of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims against the officers and the City because identified citizens provided sufficient information to establish probable cause. The court further held that the City could not be held vicariously liable for the officers’ actions and dismissed the negligent supervision claim as a result.
- Soutar v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05986
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding the defendants failed to raise a triable issue regarding the ladder’s security or a recalcitrant worker defense. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, as the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the relevant regulations were inapplicable or that they lacked control over the work site.
- Salazar v Carol Joy Family Props., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05985
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the defendant mortgagee because it established that it was an out-of-possession mortgagee that did not own, possess, or control the property. Consequently, the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff for the dangerous condition on the sidewalk.
- Sadore Lane Gardens, Inc. v City of Yonkers2026 NY Slip Op 05984
The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the causal connection between the municipality’s alleged negligence and the flooding. The municipality was immune from liability for the design of its sewerage system and the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the maintenance agreement.
- People v Berta2026 NY Slip Op 05983
The court affirmed the designation of the defendant as a level three sex offender, finding that he failed to establish that his age or health issues warranted a downward departure from the presumptive risk level. The appellate court determined that the defendant did not demonstrate that these factors resulted in an overassessment of his risk to public safety.
- People v Pressley2026 NY Slip Op 05978
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal precluded review of the sentence’s excessiveness. The court declined to exercise interest of justice jurisdiction regarding the order of protection because the issue was unpreserved.
- People v Owoaje2026 NY Slip Op 05977
The judgment convicting the defendant of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child is affirmed. The court found no error in the replacement of an unsworn juror, the admission of DNA evidence, or the exclusion of certain hearsay and grand jury testimony, and determined that any improper prosecutorial comments were harmless.
- People v Milligan2026 NY Slip Op 05975
The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the defendant’s claims regarding the withdrawal of his plea and judicial bias were unpreserved or based on matters outside the record. The court determined that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and directed that the mixed claim of ineffective assistance of counsel be raised in a CPL 440.10 proceeding.
- People v Manzi2026 NY Slip Op 05974
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the County Court did not improperly delegate judicial authority by allowing the Probation Department to determine the appropriateness of specific program conditions. The court further determined that the defendant’s arguments regarding the tailoring of conditions and coercion were unpreserved for appellate review.
- People v Guzman2026 NY Slip Op 05972
The court vacated several convictions, including strangulation and assault, because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove physical injury or that the objects used were dangerous instruments. Additionally, certain counts were dismissed as duplicitous because they encompassed multiple acts, making it impossible to determine the basis for the guilty verdict.
- People v Gaston2026 NY Slip Op 05971
The court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial court improperly dismissed the entire sworn jury panel without first inquiring into the remaining jurors’ ability to be fair and impartial. This action violated the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury selected according to law, and the error was not subject to harmless error analysis.
- People v Gast2026 NY Slip Op 05970
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated to satisfy the legal requirements. However, the court modified the sentence to make the term for one count of burglary in the first degree as a hate crime run concurrently with all other sentences.
- Pennymac Corp. v New York City Envtl. Control Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 05966
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of a nonparty’s motion to stay enforcement of a foreclosure judgment. The court held that the nonparty was bound by the proceedings because its conveyance was recorded after the filing of a notice of pendency.
- Pennymac Corp. v New York City Envtl. Control Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 05965
The court affirmed the denial of a nonparty’s motion to intervene and vacate a foreclosure judgment as untimely. The nonparty was deemed to have constructive notice of the action via a filed notice of pendency and failed to justify a 14-year delay in seeking relief.
- Nunez v Spiegel2026 NY Slip Op 05964
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the discharged attorney’s motion for an allocation of a portion of the net contingency fee, as there was sufficient evidence to determine the firm’s proportionate share of the work. The Appellate Division modified the order to grant the discharged firm 10% of the net contingency fee based on the time, labor, and effectiveness of its prior representation.
- Neil v Areeba, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05963
The court reversed the denial of leave to amend the complaint to add a Labor Law § 200 claim, finding it was not palpably insufficient. However, the court affirmed the denial of leave to add a Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the plaintiff’s duties as a porter did not involve the erection or demolition of a structure.
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Fernandez2026 NY Slip Op 05962
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred and the cancellation of the mortgage, finding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applied retroactively to preclude the plaintiff from using the CPLR 205(a) savings provision after a prior dismissal for neglect. The six-year statute of limitations began running upon the acceleration of the debt in the prior 2007 action, and the current action was commenced too late to be timely.
- Matter of VN Property, Inc. v Byrne2026 NY Slip Op 05961
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of area variances was supported by a rational basis and the record. The court determined that the board properly applied the statutory balancing test and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.
- Matter of Telesford v Hartofilis2026 NY Slip Op 05960
The court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. The court held that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is limited to compelling the performance of a ministerial act.
- Matter of Sincere S. (Kelsey L.R.)2026 NY Slip Op 05959
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s denial of the mother’s motion to vacate a finding of neglect. The court determined that the mother failed to establish good cause and did not demonstrate that vacating the finding would serve the child’s best interests.
- Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Boston Mkt. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 05958
The court confirmed the determination that Boston Market Corporation unlawfully discriminated against the complainant based on sex and upheld the associated damages and civil penalties. However, the court annulled the portion of the determination seeking enforcement against the individual respondent, Nicholas Foreman, because he cannot be held individually liable for the damages awarded.
- Matter of Multani v Singh2026 NY Slip Op 05957
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s orders granting the mother sole custody and dismissing the father’s petition, finding that the father failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the hearing. The court also affirmed the denial of the father’s motion to vacate the default, noting his lack of explanation for not contacting the court or his attorney during his hospitalization.
- Matter of Marchese Assoc., LLC v Limitless Auto. Group, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05956
The court affirmed the cancellation of a notice of pendency because, once the plaintiff was determined to be entitled only to monetary damages rather than specific performance, maintaining the notice carried indicia of bad faith. The likelihood of success on the merits was deemed irrelevant to the validity of the notice under CPLR 6514.
- Matter of Kahn2026 NY Slip Op 05955
The court imposed reciprocal disbarment on the respondent based on his consent to disbarment in New Jersey for knowing misappropriation of escrow funds. The court determined that the sanction warranted under New York rules for an attorney who submits a resignation during a grievance investigation is disbarment.
- Matter of Zyhir J. (Garland J.)2026 NY Slip Op 05954
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the children, as the evidence established he took them to shoplift, grew marijuana in their sleeping area, and asked them to provide urine samples for his own tests. The court further held that the children’s out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by their consistency and mutual support.
- Matter of Hunter v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Islip2026 NY Slip Op 05953
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of area variances was not arbitrary or capricious. The court determined that the Board properly applied the required balancing test and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Board reached a different result on essentially the same facts as a prior permit.
- Matter of George v Ranga2026 NY Slip Op 05952
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s denial of the mother’s objections, finding that she failed to demonstrate diligent attempts to secure commensurate employment. Consequently, the Support Magistrate properly based the child support calculation on the mother’s 2024 tax return income rather than her current reduced earnings.
- Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v Town of Hempstead2026 NY Slip Op 05951
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The petitioner initiated the proceeding before the Town had issued a final determination on the FOIL request, and the petitioner did not appeal the Town’s subsequent response.
- Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v Town of Hempstead2026 NY Slip Op 05950
The court held that the petitioner exhausted administrative remedies because the Town failed to timely respond to the FOIL appeal, and the petitioner substantially prevailed, entitling them to an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The branch of the petition seeking to compel production of records was properly dismissed as moot because the Town had already produced all responsive documents during the pendency of the proceeding.
- Martinez v Hands of Hope P.T., P.C.2026 NY Slip Op 05949
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim under the New York City Human Rights Law against the employer, holding that a physical therapist assistant’s sexual assault was outside the scope of employment. The court determined that such conduct, committed for wholly personal motives, does not further the employer’s business and thus precludes vicarious liability.
- Malone v Spaliviero2026 NY Slip Op 05948
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the defendant’s statute of limitations defense. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the defense was without merit and improperly introduced new evidence in their reply affirmation.
- Majid v Manna2026 NY Slip Op 05947
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment because the plaintiff’s affidavit of service established a prima facie case of proper service that the defendant failed to rebut. Additionally, the defendant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her default in answering the complaint.
- Majid v Manna2026 NY Slip Op 05946
The court affirmed the extension of time to serve the defendant under CPLR 306-b, finding no prejudice despite defective initial service. However, the court modified the lower court’s order to deny the plaintiff’s request for alternative service under CPLR 308(5) due to a lack of evidence that ordinary service was impracticable.
- Kelly v Magarie2026 NY Slip Op 05945
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the process server exercised due diligence before resorting to affix and mail service. The process server’s testimony regarding inquiries into the defendant’s employment was deemed insufficient to satisfy the legal requirements for valid service under CPLR 308(4).
- Keil v Willow Wood Assoc. LP2026 NY Slip Op 05944
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar because she failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default in appearing at compliance conferences. The plaintiff’s allegation that incoming counsel filed the matter under an incorrect index number was deemed conclusory and unsubstantiated, particularly given that counsel had previously appeared for a conference.
- Hidalgo v R.R. 590 Oak Family Limited Partnership2026 NY Slip Op 05943
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the defendants established that the injury was not the result of an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the falling glass was caused by the absence or inadequacy of a safety device prescribed by the statute.
- Hernandez v Board of Mgrs. of the NOMA Condominium2026 NY Slip Op 05942
The court affirmed summary judgment on liability for Labor Law § 240(1) violations, finding the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices for elevated work. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment on Labor Law § 241(6) and third-party claims, as triable issues of fact remained regarding statutory violations and contractual compliance.
- Henick-Lane, Inc. v Hudson Meridian Constr. Group, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05941
The court affirmed the dismissal of counterclaims for purely economic losses based on an unambiguous indemnity clause that specifically excluded such damages. However, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding costs for security and lost equipment, finding triable issues of fact concerning whether these were consequential damages reasonably contemplated by the parties.
- Grubmarket, Inc. v Thai2026 NY Slip Op 05940
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the first counterclaim for breach of contract but granted the motion to dismiss the second counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The dismissal of the second counterclaim was warranted because the allegations sought tort remedies or were duplicative of the contract claim, and the employment agreement permitted termination at will.
- Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Roberts2026 NY Slip Op 05939
The appeal is dismissed because the nonparty-appellant is not aggrieved by the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. The appellant lacked standing as he neither moved for relief nor was relief granted against him, and the judgment did not directly affect him.
- GCM Funding, LLC v Pulse Nail Spa in Buford, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05938
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for making a successive motion. The court found that the plaintiff did not show why the evidence was not available during the first motion and that the motion did not fit within the narrow exception to the successive summary judgment rule.
- Fung v Exxon Mobil Oil Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 05937
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the abutting property owner because the defendant established that the City of New York controlled the fire hydrant that caused the plaintiff’s fall. The court determined that the property owner did not create the dangerous condition, make negligent repairs, or violate a statute imposing liability for the specific hazard.
- Escobar v Sanchez2026 NY Slip Op 05936
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing cross-claims against the front driver and finding liability for the rear-end collision, as the rear driver failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation. The emergency doctrine defense was rejected because the defendant’s affidavit contradicted his earlier statements in the police report, constituting a feigned issue of fact.
- Durante v Transform SR Brands, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05935
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the defendants established that the assault was unforeseeable, negating their duty to control third-party conduct. The plaintiff’s expert opinion was deemed conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding foreseeability.
- Deutsche Bank, National Trust Company, etc., v Vicki Suhyun Wong, respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05934
The court affirmed the lower court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) could not be applied retroactively. The court held that the voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action did not revoke the acceleration of the loan or reset the statute of limitations.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Pamela Merrill2026 NY Slip Op 05933
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action and the grant of the counterclaim to cancel the mortgage, holding that the statute of limitations began running when the plaintiff accelerated the debt in a prior action. The court determined that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) prevents the voluntary discontinuance of a prior action from reviving or resetting the statute of limitations.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Roy Hall2026 NY Slip Op 05932
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the plaintiff an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint under CPLR 306-b, finding that the extension was justified in the interest of justice. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument for dismissal based on failure to comply with RPAPL 1303, as the statute does not apply to non-owner-occupied properties.
- Davidoff v Hershfield2026 NY Slip Op 05931
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the promissory note lacked clear language expressly providing for the recovery of fees on fees. The court held that such a right to recover attorneys’ fees for prosecuting a claim for attorneys’ fees must be based on a specific contractual provision and cannot be implied.
- Christiana Trust v Victor2026 NY Slip Op 05930
The court held that a defendant who serves an untimely answer waives the right to seek dismissal of the complaint as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c). Furthermore, because the defendant never vacated his default, he was precluded from raising affirmative defenses such as lack of standing and statute of limitations.
- CFS Enterprises, Inc. v CG & J Realty, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05929
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a mechanic’s lien bond because the defendant failed to strictly comply with the service requirements of Lien Law § 59. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding that the defendant’s appeal was not frivolous.
- Bonilla-Acosta v Max Servs. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 05928
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The court found that the biomechanical expert’s opinions were insufficient to establish causation because he lacked the qualifications to render medical opinions on causation and improperly rejected the plaintiffs’ deposition testimonies.
- Board of Mgrs. of Oceanview Condominium v Riccardi2026 NY Slip Op 05927
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and its grant of the plaintiff’s cross-motion for civil contempt. The court held that the law of the case doctrine barred the defendant from re-examining issues that were already determined on a prior appeal.
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeLoney2026 NY Slip Op 05925
The defendant retained standing to defend the foreclosure action because the plaintiff sought a deficiency judgment against him despite his conveyance of the property. The court affirmed the judgment of foreclosure and sale, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate a basis for vacating the summary judgment order.
- Alexim Holdings, LLC v Chang-Wardi2026 NY Slip Op 05924
The court affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim because a valid contract governed the subject matter, but reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss the injunctive relief claim. The court held that injunctive relief was inappropriate because the builder’s injury could be adequately compensated by money damages.
- 260 Prestige Brownstone 260 Corp. v 260 Clifton Pl, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05923
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint because the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the plaintiff’s claim to a 50% interest in the property. The court found that the chain of title did not conclusively establish the defendant’s grantor had authority to convey a 100% interest, nor did a broker agreement establish equitable estoppel.
Appellate Division, Third Department
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (McErlane)2026 NY Slip Op 06057
The court granted the respondent’s motion for reinstatement to the practice of law after determining by clear and convincing evidence that she complied with the suspension order and possessed the requisite character and fitness. The court further found that reinstatement would be in the public interest, effective immediately.
- Wallkill Valley Land Trust, Inc. v Richards2026 NY Slip Op 06047
The Town of Gardiner is a necessary party to the third-party complaint because any judgment affecting the rail trail would encumber the Town’s fee ownership. Consequently, the third-party complaint must be dismissed due to the nonjoinder of this necessary party, and the defendant’s affirmative defenses are barred by res judicata resulting from the stipulation of discontinuance.
- Matter of Rendon v Cosan Constr. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06046
The Workers’ Compensation Board properly refused to consider new documentary evidence submitted on administrative appeal without a sworn affidavit explaining its unavailability at the hearing. The Board’s determination that the claimant’s neck, back, shoulder, ankle, and knee injuries were causally connected to the work-related fall was supported by substantial evidence.
- Matter of Brown v New York City Tr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 06045
The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s denial of benefits, finding that the claimant’s PTSD did not result from stress greater than that ordinarily encountered in his job as a station cleaner. The court determined that witnessing a platform accident and cleaning blood were within the scope of his expected duties, failing to meet the threshold for a compensable accidental injury.
- Matter of Greek v Dansville Cent. Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 06044
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the employer’s request to abate the claim due to the decedent’s death, as the record was sufficiently developed through surveillance video and medical records. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the decedent’s injuries and subsequent death arose out of and in the course of his employment.
- Matter of Buscemi v Prime Care Coordination2026 NY Slip Op 06043
The Board properly denied the claimant’s application for reopening or rehearing because the proffered medical letter was not accompanied by a required sworn supporting affidavit. Additionally, the Board properly denied the application for reconsideration as the claimant failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition.
- People v Roblee2026 NY Slip Op 06042
The court affirmed the conviction, determining that the defendant’s valid, knowing, and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal precluded his challenges to the sentence and the factual sufficiency of his plea. Additionally, the court held that a typographical error in the underlying order of protection did not constitute a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect that would survive the guilty plea.
- People v Hummel-Parker2026 NY Slip Op 06041
The court held that the defendant’s appeal waiver was invalid due to overbroad language that was not cured by the oral colloquy. However, the judgment was affirmed because the plea was voluntary and the enhanced sentence was not unduly harsh or severe.
- People v Banks2026 NY Slip Op 06040
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant’s appeal waiver was valid and that his plea was not involuntary due to an unfulfilled promise or ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that the delay in sentencing did not constitute a broken promise and that the defendant received an advantageous plea despite counsel’s alleged errors regarding restitution and program timing.
- People v Rinzler2026 NY Slip Op 06039
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant’s guilty plea foreclosed his challenge to the sufficiency of the grand jury evidence. The court also determined that the indictment was not jurisdictionally defective because the counts incorporated the applicable statutory provisions.
- People v Downey2026 NY Slip Op 06038
The court held that the defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal due to overbroad language in the written waiver and a deficient oral colloquy. However, the court affirmed the sentence, finding it was not unduly harsh or severe given the nature of the crime.
Appellate Term, First Department
- SM I MMS, LLC v Fearless Music TV, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51716[U]
The court reversed the denial of a motion to vacate a default final judgment of possession, finding that the respondent’s documented cardiac emergency constituted a reasonable excuse for the default. Additionally, the respondent demonstrated potentially meritorious defenses regarding whether the governing agreement was a lease or a license and the validity of the non-renewal notice.
- 65 FW Owner LLC v Espinal2026 NY Slip Op 51715[U]
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment and dismissed the nonpayment proceeding because the summary judgment record conclusively established a violation of the building’s certificate of occupancy. Under Multiple Dwelling Law § 302 (1) (b), the landlord is barred from recovering rent for the period of noncompliance with the certificate of occupancy.
- Zigelstein v Shuping Tong2026 NY Slip Op 51714[U]
The court affirmed the dismissal of the trespass claim because the plaintiff failed to provide objective proof of property boundaries to establish a prima facie case. Additionally, the harassment claim was dismissed because New York law does not recognize a civil cause of action for harassment.
- Obah v Google Roblox & Roblox2026 NY Slip Op 51713[U]
The court reversed the dismissal of the complaint, reinstating the matter for a traverse hearing because the defendant’s sworn, nonconclusory denial of service raised a factual issue. Additionally, the court held that an endorsed complaint failing to adequately apprise the defendant of the action’s nature should not be dismissed outright, but rather the plaintiff should be directed to file a formal pleading.
Supreme Court, New York County
- Promise Homes Co. LLC v Promise Homes Inv., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 51706[U]
The court denied the defendant’s motion to stay the breach of contract action because the pending California lawsuit involved different legal entities and separate promissory notes, meaning the proceedings did not share common questions of law or fact. The court further determined that a stay would inordinately delay justice given that no discovery had occurred over a year after the complaint was filed.
Also decided
- People v Santos 2026 NY Slip Op 51712[U] October 15, 2026
- Matter of Perry v Monaco 2026 NY Slip Op 06031 October 15, 2026
- People v Burkett 2026 NY Slip Op 06030 October 15, 2026
- People v Mitchell 2026 NY Slip Op 06029 October 15, 2026
- People v Ruiz 2026 NY Slip Op 06028 October 15, 2026
- People v Gonzalez 2026 NY Slip Op 06023 October 15, 2026
- People v Sierra 2026 NY Slip Op 06020 October 15, 2026
- People v Herrera 2026 NY Slip Op 06018 October 15, 2026
- People v Swaby 2026 NY Slip Op 06017 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Makuch) 2026 NY Slip Op 06056 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (DeSouza) 2026 NY Slip Op 06055 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Wray 2026 NY Slip Op 06054 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Mannix 2026 NY Slip Op 06053 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Cera 2026 NY Slip Op 06052 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Lo Vacco v Pickholz 2026 NY Slip Op 06011 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Bohon 2026 NY Slip Op 06051 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Blomquist 2026 NY Slip Op 06050 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Schoep 2026 NY Slip Op 06049 October 15, 2026
- Matter of Coleman v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 06048 October 15, 2026
- Karsch v Falcon Rappaport & Berkman PLLC 2026 NY Slip Op 06006 October 15, 2026
- Cullinan v New York Univ. 2026 NY Slip Op 05999 October 15, 2026
- People v Tippa 2026 NY Slip Op 05982 October 14, 2026
- People v Thomas 2026 NY Slip Op 05981 October 14, 2026
- People v Swaby 2026 NY Slip Op 05980 October 14, 2026
- People v Richards 2026 NY Slip Op 05979 October 14, 2026
- People v Ortiz 2026 NY Slip Op 05976 October 14, 2026
- People v Ly 2026 NY Slip Op 05973 October 14, 2026
- People v Forte 2026 NY Slip Op 05969 October 14, 2026
- People v Chen Liu 2026 NY Slip Op 05968 October 14, 2026
- People v Brown 2026 NY Slip Op 05967 October 14, 2026
- Beale v K Mart Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 05926 October 14, 2026
- People v Burgess 2026 NY Slip Op 05920 October 13, 2026
- People v Bruce 2026 NY Slip Op 05919 October 13, 2026
- People v Hinds 2026 NY Slip Op 05917 October 13, 2026
- People v Saleem 2026 NY Slip Op 05916 October 13, 2026
- People v Jackson 2026 NY Slip Op 05915 October 13, 2026
- People v Marable 2026 NY Slip Op 05914 October 13, 2026
- Matter of 186 Norfolk LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal 2026 NY Slip Op 05900 October 13, 2026
Published October 17, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026.