New York Law Watch
Pandemic guaranty law upheld; the Third Department opens grievance dispositions
Week ending October 24, 2026
The First Department reversed Supreme Court and held that the City’s pandemic-era bar on enforcing personal guaranties in commercial leases survives the Contracts Clause (513 W. 26th Realty), and affirmed the Division of Human Rights in the Auxilly wedding-goods case. The Third Department recognised a qualified First Amendment right of access to attorney grievance committee dispositions (Campaign for Accountability). The Second Department added two more FAPA dismissals (Fishbein, Min Young You). In the Third Department, an off-the-record talk between judge and juror was a mode of proceedings error (Anderson).
184 decision records: 150 meet the substance floor; 34 records are held from search listings.
Edited by Eric McAvey.
Decision dates in this week run from October 20, 2026 to October 22, 2026, from 5 courts.
Selected decisions
The City’s pandemic guaranty law survives the Contracts Clause, reversing Supreme Court
513 W. 26th Realty LLC v George Billis Galleries, Inc.
Holding The court held that New York City Administrative Code § 22-1005, which temporarily barred the enforcement of personal liability guaranties for certain commercial leases during the pandemic, does not violate the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. Applying the three-part test, the court found the law served a legitimate public purpose and was a reasonable and appropriate means of addressing the economic emergency, warranting substantial deference to the legislative judgment.
we conclude that the guaranty law does not violate the Contracts Clause
2026 NY Slip Op 06058, at the official text
Refusing to sell wedding goods to a same-sex couple is discrimination the First Amendment does not shield
Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v D. Auxilly NYC LLC
Holding The court affirmed the Division of Human Rights’ order finding that the respondent discriminated against the complainant based on sexual orientation in violation of the NYSHRL. The court held that the First Amendment did not shield the business from liability because it refused to sell a previously designed and marketed garment rather than creating a customized expressive item.
D. Auxilly refused to sell the wedding garment it had previously designed and which it had marketed to the public
2026 NY Slip Op 06229, at the official text
A First Amendment right of access attaches to grievance committee dispositions on a showing of good cause
Matter of Campaign for Accountability (Sarcone-Attorney Grievance Comm. for the Third Jud. Dept.)
Holding The court held that a presumptive First Amendment right of access attaches to the adjudicatory dispositions of attorney grievance committees, requiring their disclosure upon a showing of good cause. However, the court determined that no such right attaches to investigatory documents or internal work product, which remain confidential unless traditional good cause is established.
we agree that the presumptive First Amendment right of access attaches to AGC's adjudicatory disposition of respondent's disciplinary proceeding
2026 NY Slip Op 06192, at the official text
By court
Court of Appeals
- Genesee County Fish & Game Protective Assn., Inc. v Sullivan2026 NY Slip Op 06168
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff established title by adverse possession to the disputed road. The majority found that the plaintiff’s proof of hostile and exclusive possession was sufficient and that defendants failed to raise any triable issue of fact.
- Kolli v Kaleida Health2026 NY Slip Op 06167
The Court held that the physician was covered under the hospital’s self-insurance plan and that the plan constituted an insurance policy subject to ‘other insurance’ clauses. Consequently, the hospital’s coverage was determined to be excess to the primary insurer, with the hospital and excess insurer sharing responsibility on a pro rata basis.
Appellate Division, First Department
- Torres v Tinton Realty Group LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06233
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant because triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the defendant acted as the general contractor. However, the court modified the order to grant summary judgment dismissing the property owner’s cross-claims for common-law indemnification and contribution against the defendant.
- Williams v Dia2026 NY Slip Op 06232
The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff regarding liability against the defendant driver, finding him negligent as a matter of law, but reinstated the complaint against the other driver because the first driver’s negligence did not preclude comparative fault by the second. The court also held that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact on causation through her expert’s opinion.
- Weiss v Salgado2026 NY Slip Op 06231
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, dismissing the complaint because the defendants met their prima facie burden of showing the treatment met the standard of care and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s expert opinions were deemed unsupported or contradicted by the medical records regarding the use of intravenous lines and monitoring procedures.
- Wilson Tang, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v Vincent Tang, Defendant-Appellant2026 NY Slip Op 06230
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s finding of civil contempt, determining that the defendant failed to comply with a court order to add the plaintiff as an authorized representative on bank accounts and violated a settlement agreement by disparaging the plaintiff on social media.
- Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v D. Auxilly NYC LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06229
The court affirmed the Division of Human Rights’ order finding that the respondent discriminated against the complainant based on sexual orientation in violation of the NYSHRL. The court held that the First Amendment did not shield the business from liability because it refused to sell a previously designed and marketed garment rather than creating a customized expressive item.
- Matter of R.S. v M.T.2026 NY Slip Op 06228
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s denial of the mother’s motion to vacate a default custody order, finding that she demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious defense. The court determined that the default order was improvidently entered given the mother’s safety concerns and the lack of sufficient evidence to determine the child’s best interests.
- Matter of L.S. v S.P.2026 NY Slip Op 06227
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order of protection, finding that the petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed menacing in the third degree and harassment in the second degree. The court deferred to the Family Court’s credibility determinations, noting the ample opportunity for cross-examination and demeanor assessment during the hearing.
- Matter of R.R. v J.I.F.2026 NY Slip Op 06226
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the father’s petition for visitation with prejudice, finding that visitation was not in the child’s best interests due to the father’s history of abuse and poor conduct. The court determined that the father’s refusal to take responsibility for his actions and his threatening behavior toward the child’s attorneys justified the trial court’s decision.
- Matter of Pirov v Caban2026 NY Slip Op 06225
The Board of Trustees’ denial of accidental disability retirement benefits was supported by substantial credible evidence because the officer’s injury resulted from a risk inherent in his regular job duties rather than an accident. The court found it rational to conclude that the officer could have reasonably anticipated encountering uneven pavement while responding to emergencies.
- PF2 Sec. Evaluations, Inc. v Fillebeen2026 NY Slip Op 06224
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of discovery sanctions, finding that the issues had already been resolved by a Special Referee and that the defendants’ conduct did not warrant sanctions. The court also rejected the argument for dismissal of counterclaims as a spoliation sanction due to insufficient evidence of destruction.
- People v Daly2026 NY Slip Op 06222
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that the trial court properly admitted the surveillance video based on the totality of the evidence. The court determined that any uncertainty regarding the video’s authenticity went to its weight rather than its admissibility.
- People v Silver2026 NY Slip Op 06220
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision to adjudicate the defendant a level two sexually violent offender, finding that the court properly declined to grant a downward departure. The court determined that the risk assessment instrument adequately accounted for the defendant’s mitigating factors, which were outweighed by the egregiousness of the underlying child abuse offense.
- People v Smith2026 NY Slip Op 06215
The court struck probation conditions requiring the defendant to support dependents, refrain from gang association, and pay mandatory surcharges, finding them not reasonably related to rehabilitation due to a lack of evidence of children or gang affiliation. The court affirmed the conviction and other probation conditions, noting that the defendant’s valid appeal waiver foreclosed review of his excessive sentence claim.
- People v D.M.2026 NY Slip Op 06212
The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee because the defendant was sentenced after the legislature repealed the statutory provisions authorizing such fees for youthful offenders. The court further held that the omission of a specific element during the plea allocution and the sequencing of trial rights discussions did not render the guilty plea invalid.
- People v Gregory2026 NY Slip Op 06211
The court affirmed the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, finding the evidence legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The court also upheld the denial of the suppression motion, determining that the defendant’s abandonment of the firearm constituted an intentional relinquishment of any privacy interest.
- People v Rodriguez2026 NY Slip Op 06209
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal foreclosed review of his challenges to the search warrant and excessive sentence. However, the court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice to vacate the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing.
- Osei v Polanco-Puello2026 NY Slip Op 06207
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to establish a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiff’s expert failed to provide a causation opinion regarding the MRI findings, which defeated both the permanent limitation and 90/180-day claims.
- Nunez v Hispanic Socy. of Am.2026 NY Slip Op 06206
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim because he was working on an elevated work site without adequate safety devices. The court found that the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
- Mury v Fashion Inst. of Tech.2026 NY Slip Op 06204
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plenary action because the plaintiff’s claims were duplicative of the pending article 78 proceeding, which is the exclusive forum for challenging educational disciplinary determinations. The appellate court further held that the plaintiff’s failure to raise specific arguments on appeal regarding the merits of her claims resulted in those claims being deemed abandoned.
- Menkes v Menkes2026 NY Slip Op 06203
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment directing that a home equity line of credit secured by the husband’s separate property be paid from the proceeds of the jointly owned marital residence. The court held that the debt incurred to acquire the marital residence is not transformed into a separate property obligation merely because it is secured by separate property.
- Medley Management Inc. v Lowenstein Sandler, LLP2026 NY Slip Op 06202
The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice complaint, finding that the defendants’ advice was reasonable and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate proximate cause or actual damages. The court determined that the plaintiff’s claims regarding the bankruptcy plan’s withdrawal and potential confirmation were speculative and insufficient to raise triable issues of fact.
- Maldonado v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06201
Summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the City had prior written notice of the specific defect or affirmatively created it. The City’s records showed no written complaints about the specific bump, and photographs of other nearby defects did not constitute a written acknowledgment of the injury-causing condition.
- Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hartsfield2026 NY Slip Op 06199
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action because the plaintiff failed to take proceedings for entry of judgment within one year after the defendant’s default, as required by CPLR 3215(c). The plaintiff was judicially estopped from arguing the defendant did not need to answer the amended complaint, and the defendant did not waive her right to seek dismissal by participating in the litigation.
- Denson v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06197
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s retaliation claim, finding that the defendant’s arbitration filing raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the action was pretextual. The court determined that inconsistencies in the defendant’s stated reasons and the arbitrary nature of the damages demand allowed a jury to conclude the arbitration was motivated by retaliatory animus.
- Matter of Debnam v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 06196
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not properly submitting FOIL requests through the MTA’s designated channels. Additionally, the motion for default judgment was properly denied because it was filed while the MTA’s cross-motion to dismiss was still pending.
- Colliers Intl. NY LLC v City Hall Commons LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06195
The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for the broker, holding that a lease renewal agreement between the landlord and tenant that explicitly named the broker as exclusive and obligated the landlord to pay fees created a binding obligation to pay the commission. The court rejected the landlord’s argument that the lack of a separate brokerage agreement negated this express obligation.
- Chan v Fraley2026 NY Slip Op 06194
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of additional interim counsel fees, finding that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion given the economic disparity between the parties. The court awarded an additional $10,000 in counsel fees to the plaintiff, noting that the previous award was inexplicably low considering the defendant’s dilatory behavior and the plaintiff’s financial burden.
- Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06193
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to affirmatively confirm the arbitration award and remanded the matter to fix the amount of attorneys’ fees owed to the respondent. The court held that the respondent was entitled to fees under Insurance Law § 5106(a) and that the trial court must review evidence to set a reasonable fee or determine it in its discretion if evidence is insufficient.
- United States Fire Insurance Company et al. v Michael Palin et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06080
The appeal was dismissed as taken from a nonappealable paper because an order declining to sign an order to show cause is an ex parte order that does not decide a motion made on notice. The court also declined to grant leave to appeal in the interest of justice, finding that the plaintiffs’ expenditure of resources to perfect the appeal did not constitute a unique circumstance warranting such relief.
- Matter of Troise v Marchiano2026 NY Slip Op 06079
The court affirmed the denial of a petition to annul an OATH determination, holding that mandamus is not appropriate to compel the processing of document requests in a specific manner when the agency’s redirection of requests and added requirements constitute discretionary acts rather than ministerial duties. The court found that OATH’s decision to require submissions to a dedicated email address and proof of entitlement was supported by a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious.
- Stabile v Dragonetti Bros. Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06078
The Supreme Court properly granted class certification because the worker affirmations sufficiently demonstrated that common questions of law and fact predominated regarding the systematic failure to pay prevailing wages. The court held that individualized determinations of whether specific landscaping tasks constituted construction-like labor do not defeat commonality at the certification stage.
- Sanchez-Rodriguez v Bruce2026 NY Slip Op 06077
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding which vehicle was required to yield the right of way. The conflicting testimony and the obstruction caused by a third-party truck prevented a conclusive determination of liability as a matter of law.
- Matter of People ex rel. Magee v Maginley-Liddie2026 NY Slip Op 06073
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of a habeas corpus petition, holding that the period between arraignment and the pretrial motion deadline was excludable from speedy trial calculations under CPL 30.30(4)(a). The court determined that the motion schedule was not a sua sponte adjournment requiring consent, but rather a reasonable delay for pretrial motions based on defense counsel’s representations.
- People v Letang2026 NY Slip Op 06072
The conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance was affirmed because the evidence was not against the weight of the evidence and the trial court properly admitted the narcotics despite chain of custody gaps. The court also properly precluded evidence of prior sales by another person and denied the motion to reopen the Mapp hearing based on conclusory allegations.
- People v Oquendo2026 NY Slip Op 06071
The court affirmed the defendant’s sentences, holding that he waived his argument regarding jury determination of tolling periods by freely admitting to them in the offender statements. Additionally, the court determined that the federal decision in Erlinger does not apply to New York’s tolling provisions.
- People v Gray2026 NY Slip Op 06070
The judgment convicting the defendant of scheme to defraud in the first degree is affirmed because the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the court had territorial jurisdiction. The defendant’s admission during plea allocution that he consigned stolen items to be sold in a New York auction house satisfied the jurisdictional requirements.
- People v Mercado2026 NY Slip Op 06069
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant’s Miranda waiver was valid and not limited to the specific subject of the bench warrant arrest. Additionally, the court found no due process violation in the curtailment of questioning regarding police deception, as the officers were lawfully permitted to question the defendant on the present charges despite his right to counsel attaching to unrelated charges.
- Matter of Patterson v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06068
The Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner’s motion to renew because he failed to present new evidence that would alter the prior dismissal of his article 78 petition. A finding by another court that the petitioner resigned rather than was terminated does not constitute new evidence sufficient to change the outcome of the prior decisions.
- Matter of S.B.N. (J.N.)2026 NY Slip Op 06067
The court affirmed the termination of the mother’s parental rights, finding that clear and convincing evidence established her inability to provide proper care due to mental illness. The expert’s opinion was deemed competent despite the lack of direct observation of the mother’s interactions with the children.
- Mema v Procida Constr. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06066
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims because the defendant failed to establish a lack of supervisory control. However, it reversed the grant of partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that the plaintiff’s testimony regarding a wet floor created a triable issue of fact regarding causation.
- Mella v Russian Samovar, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06065
The out-of-possession landlord was not contractually obligated to maintain the lighting, which was not a structural defect, and was entitled to summary judgment on its cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The plaintiff’s expert evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the proximate cause of the accident.
- IKB International S.A. in Liquidation et al. v Morgan Stanley et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06064
The court affirmed the exclusion of evidence regarding collateral characteristics and securitizations not specifically alleged in the complaint, finding that such evidence would prejudice the defendants. Additionally, the court dismissed the appeal from the consent order because the plaintiffs were not aggrieved by the dismissal of their own complaint.
- Gonzalez v Chatsworth Bldrs. LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06063
The court modified the lower court’s order to deny the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding the occurrence of the accident and the causal relationship of the injuries. The defendants’ evidence, including witness statements and expert medical opinions, was sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
- Matter of E.V. v M.L.P.2026 NY Slip Op 06062
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the father’s petition for custody modification, finding that the child’s best interests were served by remaining in the mother’s primary custody. The court modified the contempt fine to $250 because the lower court failed to find actual loss or injury, and remanded the matter to determine the father’s reasonable counsel fees.
- Cura Found. v Shaya2026 NY Slip Op 06061
The court held that the promissory note was an instrument for the payment of money only under CPLR 3213, permitting summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The defendant’s defenses of fraud and breach of the underlying pledge agreement were insufficient to defeat the motion because the note contained an unconditional payment clause and the alleged fraud was legally insufficient.
- Matter of C.P. v D.H.2026 NY Slip Op 06060
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order granting the father primary physical custody, finding a change in circumstances and that the best interests of the children were served by the modification. The court relied on evidence of poor hygiene, dental care, and school attendance in the mother’s care, as well as credible testimony regarding domestic violence witnessed by the children.
- Alesco Preferred Funding VIII, Ltd. v ACP Re, Ltd.2026 NY Slip Op 06059
The court granted summary judgment dismissing claims against defendants for breach of indenture, common-law successor liability, alter ego, tortious interference, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. It held that unrebutted expert testimony established the defendants were not contractual successors, and that New York law did not apply to the common-law successor liability claim against ACP Re due to minimal Bermuda contacts.
- 513 W. 26th Realty LLC v George Billis Galleries, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06058
The court held that New York City Administrative Code § 22-1005, which temporarily barred the enforcement of personal liability guaranties for certain commercial leases during the pandemic, does not violate the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. Applying the three-part test, the court found the law served a legitimate public purpose and was a reasonable and appropriate means of addressing the economic emergency, warranting substantial deference to the legislative judgment.
Appellate Division, Second Department
- Young v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06166
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants failed to demonstrate prima facie that they did not receive prior written notice of the defective boardwalk condition. The supporting affidavit was insufficient because it did not unequivocally assert that the search failed to reveal notice and did not attach the searched records.
- VK Dental Group, Inc. v Tender Touch Physical Therapy, PLLC2026 NY Slip Op 06164
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff because the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff’s failure to perform its contractual obligations. Specifically, evidence showed the plaintiff failed to pay for 50% of utilities and had gas service disconnected, precluding summary judgment.
- U.S. Bank National Association, etc., respondent, v William L. Vetri, etc., appellant, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06162
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s cross-motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that newly discovered evidence would have produced a different result. Additionally, the defendant failed to establish a potentially meritorious defense or any fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the plaintiff to support relief under CPLR 5015(a)(3).
- U.S. Bank National Association, etc., appellant, v Leon Pursoo, respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06161
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or an interest of justice for extending the time to serve the defendant. The plaintiff’s failure to serve within the statutory 120-day period, coupled with a lack of evidence showing reasonable diligence or actual notice, warranted the vacatur of the prior order and dismissal of the complaint.
- Spain v Williams2026 NY Slip Op 06160
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s defamation claims, finding that the alleged statements were nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole rather than provable facts. The court further upheld the award of costs and attorneys’ fees to the defendants under the anti-SLAPP statute because the action lacked a substantial basis in law.
- Sapp-Gooding v Kreindler & Kreindler, LLP2026 NY Slip Op 06159
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice claim, finding that the plaintiffs stated a cause of action and raised triable issues of fact regarding the continuous representation doctrine tolling the statute of limitations. Additionally, the court upheld the extension of time to serve the summons with notice in the interest of justice.
- Ruiz v Town of Southampton2026 NY Slip Op 06158
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on liability because the defendants provided a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision, creating a triable issue of fact. The appeal regarding the dismissal of affirmative defenses was dismissed due to an inadequate record lacking the defendants’ answer.
- Rivera v M. GS Talukder2026 NY Slip Op 06157
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the Uber defendants because they failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the driver was an employee or an independent contractor. The court determined that the classification of the driver as an employee or independent contractor is a factual issue for the jury, precluding summary judgment dismissal.
- Reyes v Chapman2026 NY Slip Op 06156
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of proving the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The defendants’ expert failed to adequately explain why the plaintiff’s significant limitations in range of motion were voluntary, and the submissions failed to eliminate triable issues regarding causation and the 90/180-day category.
- Pruessen v Richard Capobianco, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06155
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s judgment as a matter of law, finding that a rational jury could conclude the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with a vehicle already in the intersection. The court also held that the trial court improperly excluded photographs of vehicle damage that were relevant to establishing liability.
- Perkins v 34 215 St, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06154
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the notary complied with statutory identity verification obligations and that the title company was not liable for negligence to a non-contracting party absent evidence of fraud or special circumstances.
- Perez v Premier Home Health Care Servs., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06153
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim because the defendant demonstrated it did not terminate the plaintiff during the employment term. The plaintiff remained employed and compensated through the end of the contract, rendering him ineligible for severance benefits.
- People v Sanchez2026 NY Slip Op 06152
The court affirmed the defendant’s level two sex offender designation and the denial of a downward departure, but modified the order to remove the sexually violent offender designation. The court found that the evidence sufficiently supported the risk assessment points and that the significant age disparity between the parties precluded a downward departure based on the victim’s lack of consent.
- People v Vincent2026 NY Slip Op 06149
The conviction was reversed and the case remitted for a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted a police detective’s opinion on surveillance video footage, which usurped the jury’s fact-finding role, and admitted Molineux testimony where the prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value. The court found these errors were not harmless given that the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming.
- People v Saylor2026 NY Slip Op 06148
The court held that the defendant’s appeal waiver was invalid because the oral colloquy mischaracterized the rights waived and occurred after the plea, rendering the written waiver insufficient to cure the defect. Despite the invalid waiver, the court affirmed the sentence as not excessive.
- People v Sanchez2026 NY Slip Op 06147
The court affirmed the conviction for grand larceny in the third degree, finding the evidence of property value legally sufficient. The court declined to review the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal, directing the defendant to pursue it via a CPL 440.10 proceeding.
- People v Sanchez2026 NY Slip Op 06146
The court vacated the convictions for robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree because the police lacked a lawful basis to remove a driver’s license from the defendant’s pocket during a protective frisk. The admission of this evidence was not harmless error, as it significantly corroborated the prosecution’s case and influenced the jury’s verdict.
- People v Piccinonno2026 NY Slip Op 06145
The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence to support the convictions for attempted assault and other charges. The court further held that the sentence was not excessive and that the disparity between the trial sentence and the plea offer did not establish vindictiveness.
- People v Malla2026 NY Slip Op 06142
The appellate court reduced the defendant’s seven-year prison sentence to three and one-half years because the lower court failed to adequately account for the four years of federal detention the defendant had already served. The court also determined that the defendant’s purported appeal waiver was invalid because the colloquy did not ensure he understood the distinction between the right to appeal and rights forfeited by a guilty plea.
- People v Knowlin2026 NY Slip Op 06140
The appellate court held that the defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because the court failed to confirm his understanding of the written waiver and provided an unclear oral explanation. Consequently, the court reviewed the excessive sentence claim and affirmed the sentence as not excessive.
- People v Jackson2026 NY Slip Op 06139
The court held that while the defendant’s pre-Miranda statements in the holding cell were voluntary and spontaneous, the subsequent videotaped interrogation should have been suppressed because the initial pre-Miranda questioning constituted interrogation without a sufficient break. However, the error in admitting the videotaped interrogation was deemed harmless because the remaining evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
- People v Hayes2026 NY Slip Op 06137
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal precluded review of the sentence’s excessiveness. Although the defendant’s challenge to the duration of the order of protection survived the waiver, the court declined to reach the issue because it was unpreserved and the defendant failed to seek relief from the issuing court first.
- People v Gouveia2026 NY Slip Op 06135
The court affirmed the conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, rejecting the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel provided meaningful representation despite failing to introduce certain evidence or request a lesser included offense charge. The court determined that the defendant’s claims were based on unsubstantiated affidavits and that the overwhelming evidence of guilt negated any prejudice.
- People v Daniel2026 NY Slip Op 06133
The appellate court held that the defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because it was not discussed as part of the plea bargain before the agreement was reached. Consequently, the court reviewed the excessive sentence claim and affirmed the sentence as not excessive.
- People v Chimborazo2026 NY Slip Op 06132
The judgments were reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different Justice because the trial court conducted excessive and prejudicial questioning of witnesses, creating the impression that it was an advocate for the People. The court reached this unpreserved claim in the exercise of its interest of justice jurisdiction.
- O’Hanlon v Renwick2026 NY Slip Op 06129
The court affirmed the interlocutory judgment directing specific performance because the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the parties’ agreement on material terms. Additionally, the plaintiff’s subsequent conduct did not constitute an anticipatory repudiation of the original contract.
- O’Hanlon v Renwick2026 NY Slip Op 06128
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order, holding that the law of the case doctrine barred the defendant from conducting discovery on a statute of frauds defense that had already been determined in a prior appeal. Consequently, the defendant’s application for discovery was denied and the plaintiff’s application to preclude it was granted.
- New Residential Mtge., LLC v Tobing2026 NY Slip Op 06127
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to vacate a prior foreclosure judgment and dismiss the complaint as time-barred. The court determined that the statute of limitations began running when the original 2008 action commenced and was not reset by the voluntary discontinuance of that action.
- Matter of Wolf2026 NY Slip Op 06125
The court affirmed the Special Referee’s report sustaining all eight charges of professional misconduct, including misappropriation and commingling of funds, and ordered the respondent’s disbarment. The court determined that the respondent’s misuse of an escrow account to shield personal funds from creditors and his failure to fully acknowledge the severity of his misconduct warranted the most severe sanction.
- Matter of United Financial Casualty Company v Sharon A. Jack, et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06124
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition to stay arbitration because the petitioner failed to submit admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact regarding whether the accident was staged. The vague allegations in the disclaimer letter and the late submission of an investigator’s affidavit were insufficient to justify a framed-issue hearing.
- Matter of Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. v Town of Islip2026 NY Slip Op 06123
The court affirmed the tax exemption for the improved parcel housing the hotel and casino, finding it served the corporation’s purpose, but reversed the exemption for the ten vacant and undeveloped parcels. The appellate court determined that the evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the vacant land was used for the corporation’s specific corporate purpose.
- Matter of Mia A.P. (Dennis L.)2026 NY Slip Op 06121
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s finding of neglect and its denial of the mother’s motions to dismiss and vacate the finding. The court determined that the mother failed to establish good cause to vacate the neglect finding due to the serious nature of the conduct and her lack of insight into the harm caused to the child.
- Matter of Madaio v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.2026 NY Slip Op 06120
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision to annul the denial of accidental disability retirement benefits, finding that the Board of Trustees’ determination was arbitrary and capricious. The court held that there was no rational basis for concluding that slipping on grease was a risk inherent in the work or a reasonably anticipated event.
- Matter of Lindo v Ponte2026 NY Slip Op 06118
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 proceeding, finding that the Administrative Law Judge was properly designated in writing as required by Civil Service Law § 75(2). The court determined that the 2012 letter from the DOC Commissioner designating OATH judges was sufficient to establish the ALJ’s jurisdiction.
- Matter of Itria Ventures, LLC v RVS Constr. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06117
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross-motion to vacate an order directing the turnover of funds because the appellant failed to establish that the proffered evidence was undiscoverable through due diligence. Additionally, the appellant failed to demonstrate that the purportedly newly discovered evidence probably would have produced a different result.
- Matter of Erie Ins. Co. v Rodriguez2026 NY Slip Op 06115
Supplemental underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage is not triggered when the bodily injury liability limits of the tortfeasor’s insurance policies are greater than the third-party liability limits of the policy under which the claimant seeks SUM benefits. The court affirmed the stay of arbitration because the State Farm limits exceeded the Erie policy limits.
- Matter of Coven v Neptune Equities, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06114
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petition for judicial dissolution because the record failed to demonstrate that the dissension between the parties precluded the successful and profitable conduct of the corporation’s affairs. The court emphasized that the critical consideration is whether a deadlock exists, not who is at fault for the dissension.
- Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer2026 NY Slip Op 06113
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s award of $1,000 in attorneys’ fees because the Supreme Court failed to state the evidentiary basis for that specific determination. The matter was remitted for a new determination of the fee amount with a required statement of the evidentiary basis.
- Mortgage Assets Mgt., LLC v Robinson2026 NY Slip Op 06112
The court affirmed the dismissal of the mortgage foreclosure action as time-barred, holding that the statute of limitations began running upon the commencement of a prior action in 2014 and was not reset by its subsequent voluntary discontinuance. The court further granted the defendant’s counterclaim to cancel and discharge the mortgage under RPAPL 1501(4) due to the expiration of the limitations period.
- Mizrahi v Saraya2026 NY Slip Op 06110
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order, granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment and denying the defendants’ cross-motion to compel acceptance of a late answer. The court found that the defendants failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their default, as their claim of law office failure was conclusory and unsubstantiated.
- McLeod v Atlantis Operating, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06109
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to grant the defendants’ motion to amend their answer to deny specific allegations of negligence, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice. However, the court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to remove their admission of operating the nursing facility due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and lack of a reasonable excuse for delay.
- McLean v Nelson2026 NY Slip Op 06108
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants failed to establish that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Additionally, the defendants did not demonstrate that the condition was open and obvious or not inherently dangerous as a matter of law.
- Liao v Sheng Sheng Constr., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06107
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because the plaintiff demonstrated that a falling post required securing for the undertaking and was not adequately secured. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the foreseeability of the risk or the proximate cause of the injury.
- Latchana v Khubba2026 NY Slip Op 06106
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of mutual contempt motions, finding that neither party established by clear and convincing evidence that the other disobeyed court orders or caused prejudice. The court also upheld the grant of injunctive relief designating the defendant as the primary contact for the marital business and the denial of counsel fees due to a lack of evidence regarding financial conditions.
- Kibalya v Kibalya2026 NY Slip Op 06105
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the divorce action on the ground of forum non conveniens, finding that the trial court providently exercised its discretion. The court determined that the plaintiff’s residence in Australia, the defendant’s residence in Uganda, and the location of evidence and assets outside the United States militated against retaining the litigation in New York.
- Indian Harbor Insurance Company v SP & K Construction, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06104
The insurer failed to demonstrate entitlement to rescind the policy because it did not present documentation showing its underwriting practices would have prohibited issuance had the true facts been disclosed. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint but modified the judgment to award the defendants costs and attorneys’ fees.
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Mohassib2026 NY Slip Op 06103
The Appellate Division modified the judgment by denying the motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale because the affiant failed to establish a proper foundation for the business records relied upon. The court also granted the intervenor’s application to toll the accrual of interest for specific periods of unexplained delay in the prosecution of the action.
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Min Young You2026 NY Slip Op 06102
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting the defendants’ motion to renew and dismissing the foreclosure complaint as time-barred. The court held that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) retroactively amended CPLR 3217(e) to prevent the voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action from resetting the statute of limitations.
- Federal National Mortgage Association v Taylor2026 NY Slip Op 06101
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal order because the subsequent foreclosure action was adjudicated time-barred. Under RPAPL 1301(4), this adjudication renders the earlier action barred by the statute of limitations as well.
- Federal National Mortgage Association v Fishbein2026 NY Slip Op 06100
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred, holding that the voluntary discontinuance of a prior action did not reset the statute of limitations under the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act. The court determined that the plaintiff could not unilaterally revive the accrual of the cause of action after the initial acceleration of the mortgage debt.
- Fareverse, LLC v Bourne2026 NY Slip Op 06099
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to toll the accrual of interest on the mortgage loan. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was responsible for unexplained delays or other wrongful conduct in the prosecution of the foreclosure action.
- Evaristo v GH 441 1st Fee, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06098
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The court held that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding statutory violation or the plaintiff’s sole proximate cause of injury.
- Duran v FLA Mtge. Capital 2, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06097
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action to cancel a mortgage, holding that the defendant, as an assignee of a federal agency, is entitled to immunity from New York’s statute of limitations. This immunity applies even if the defendant is an assignee of a commercial lender to which the federal agency had previously assigned the mortgage.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas, etc., respondent, v Favio Taveras, etc., et al., defendants, Freddy Duran, appellant.2026 NY Slip Op 06096
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for leave to renew because the defendant improperly asserted a new legal argument rather than relying on new facts or a change in law. Additionally, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a complaint, to prove that a prior action to foreclose the same mortgage was pending.
- De Almeida v Scavone2026 NY Slip Op 06095
The Appellate Division affirmed the order compelling the defendants to provide discovery but modified it by deleting the provision that conditionally struck their answer. The court found that while the lower court properly exercised discretion in compelling discovery, it did not providently exercise discretion in imposing the sanction of striking the answer.
- Da Silva v Delshah-OTL-Start 22 Chapel Prop. Owner, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06094
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding their authority to supervise the work and their constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on specific Industrial Code violations, finding the cited regulations inapplicable to the facts.
- Connors v Kushner Cos., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06093
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint because a motion to renew is the appropriate vehicle for seeking relief based on a change in the law. Additionally, the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit.
- Connors v Kushner Cos., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06092
The court affirmed the lower court’s determination that units subject to a temporary student housing exemption resumed rent-stabilized status upon the exemption’s expiration, but could be lawfully deregulated under the then-applicable luxury deregulation provisions if the legal regulated rent met the statutory threshold. The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to establish that specific units were legally deregulated or substantially altered to qualify for a first stabilization rate.
- Conde-Rosado v Young Don Oh2026 NY Slip Op 06091
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice claim but reversed the dismissal of the lack of informed consent claim. The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment on informed consent because the plaintiff’s testimony contradicted the expert’s assertion that risks were discussed.
- City of New York v Arlene M. Tropp 2002 Revocable Trust2026 NY Slip Op 06090
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding zoning compliance and the applicability of reasonable accommodation claims. The court found that the defendants’ disability-based arguments did not address all alleged violations and failed to demonstrate the absence of material facts regarding selective enforcement.
- Cheemanlall v Toolsee2026 NY Slip Op 06089
The court held that the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the judgment for specific performance was barred by the doctrine of laches due to unreasonable delay. However, the court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the claim for the return of the down payment, finding that the defendant was not ready, willing, and able to perform.
- Burton v Gurung2026 NY Slip Op 06088
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the livery defendants because they established they were not at fault in the accident. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the cause of the collision or the prematurity of the motion.
- Buitrago v Cascade 553, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06087
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The court found that while the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the falling plywood required securing.
- Bolanos v 50 Clinton Property Owner, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06086
The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a hazard and the failure to secure a scaffold cross brace. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the injury.
- Bethpage Federal Credit Union v Anthony Pepe2026 NY Slip Op 06085
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff because the RPAPL 1304 notices failed to include the mandatory website address for the NYS Office of the Attorney General’s Homeowner Protection Program. Consequently, the notices were facially defective, and the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.
- Bank of America, N.A. v Maddox2026 NY Slip Op 06084
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff because the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie standing and strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice requirements. Specifically, the plaintiff could not prove it held the note at the time of commencement or that the required 90-day notice was sent by both certified and first-class mail.
- Baize v 24 Hour Fitness2026 NY Slip Op 06083
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for lost earnings because the plaintiff failed to prove actual past earnings with reasonable certainty. Additionally, the court held that while the plaintiff’s cross-motion was generally untimely, the branch concerning lost earnings could be entertained because it was based on nearly identical grounds to the defendants’ timely motion.
- Apuzzo v Central Cabinets, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06082
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the decision and for a new inquest because the plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to damages. The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the plaintiff’s witness from testifying regarding the value of the cabinets because the witness lacked the requisite experience to render such an opinion.
- American Transit Insurance Company v Bliss Acupuncture, P.C.2026 NY Slip Op 06081
The dismissal of a de novo action due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery demands revives the underlying master arbitration award, making it binding on the parties. Consequently, the defendant is entitled to confirmation of that award and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees for services performed in connection with the de novo action and the appeal.
Appellate Division, Third Department
- Matter of Campaign for Accountability (Sarcone-Attorney Grievance Comm. for the Third Jud. Dept.)2026 NY Slip Op 06192
The court held that a presumptive First Amendment right of access attaches to the adjudicatory dispositions of attorney grievance committees, requiring their disclosure upon a showing of good cause. However, the court determined that no such right attaches to investigatory documents or internal work product, which remain confidential unless traditional good cause is established.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Sukljian2026 NY Slip Op 06191
The court reversed the grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish standing as the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. Specifically, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the allonges containing the necessary endorsements were firmly affixed to the note when the lawsuit began.
- Matter of Iris YY. (Jasmine WW.-David XX.)2026 NY Slip Op 06190
The Appellate Division affirmed the termination of the mother’s parental rights, finding that she violated the terms of her suspended judgment by failing to maintain consistent visitation, engage in mental health counseling, and keep a safe residence. The court determined that the Family Court’s credibility determinations were supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.
- Janof v Auto Warehouse2026 NY Slip Op 06189
The court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial because the verdict sheet was internally inconsistent, as it allowed the jury to find the airbag design was not reasonably safe but that the manufacturer was not negligent in selecting that same design. The court determined that separate interrogatories for strict products liability and negligent design were redundant given the substantial factual overlap between the claims.
- Matter of Griffon Green, LLC v New York State Cannabis Control Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 06188
The court held that the Office of Cannabis Management’s determination to deem the petitioner’s application void was arbitrary and capricious because the delay was inadvertent and caused no prejudice to the respondents. The court reversed the lower court’s judgment, reinstated the application, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
- Brew v Brew2026 NY Slip Op 06187
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of partial summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendants’ construction of a new roof and driveway constituted artificial means that diverted surface water onto the plaintiff’s property. The court determined that the creation of over 1,000 square feet of new impervious surface was sufficient to challenge the defendants’ claim that no artificial diversion occurred.
- Matter of Zechariah F. (Marcella F.)2026 NY Slip Op 06186
The court affirmed the Family Court’s adjudication of neglect and abuse based on the mother’s federal guilty plea admissions, rejecting her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The matter was remitted solely to clarify the lower court’s inconsistent order regarding the younger child’s derivative severe abuse.
- Atkins v Atkins2026 NY Slip Op 06185
The Appellate Division affirmed the equitable distribution of marital property, including a 22.5% share of a business interest and related payments, finding no abuse of discretion despite the trial court’s failure to articulate specific statutory factors. The court also upheld the denial of a tax credit to the husband and the imposition of a below-statutory interest rate on the distributive award.
- Matter of Frank CC. v Samantha BB.2026 NY Slip Op 06183
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order modifying custody to grant the father primary physical custody, finding that the child’s exposure to domestic violence constituted a change in circumstances warranting a best interests review. The court determined that the mother’s instability and the father’s stable environment provided a sound and substantial basis for the modification.
- Four-Rosenbaum v Four-Rosenbaum2026 NY Slip Op 06182
The Supreme Court erred by analyzing the motion to limit child support arrears under Family Ct Act § 451 rather than Family Ct Act § 413 (1) (g), which prevents arrears from accruing if income is below the federal poverty guidelines. The matter was remitted for a hearing to determine if the statutory requirements for preventing arrears accrual were met.
- Matter of Jack CC. (Cassandra BB.)2026 NY Slip Op 06181
The appeals were dismissed as moot because the mother surrendered her parental rights, eliminating the live controversy. The court held that the exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply because the discovery issues did not typically evade appellate review.
- Matter of Matthew R. (Jaqueline R.)2026 NY Slip Op 06180
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s determination that the child was permanently neglected, finding that the petitioner made diligent efforts to reunify the family while the mother failed to plan for the child’s future. The court held that the mother’s challenge to the termination of parental rights was moot due to the child’s adoption, but the permanent neglect finding remained reviewable due to its significant stigma.
- Matter of Vera Y. v Joshua Y.2026 NY Slip Op 06179
The Appellate Division vacated the contempt finding and associated fine regarding the father’s failure to designate a pediatrician because the underlying court order was ambiguous. Additionally, the court reversed the child support award and remitted the matter for recalculation, finding that the father was denied due process when the Family Court entered the award despite assuring the parties it would refer the issue to a Support Magistrate.
- Riley v Daly2026 NY Slip Op 06178
The court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy claim and their cross-motion to set the boundary line by survey, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding both the intent behind the surveillance cameras and the precise location of the boundary. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the doctrine of practical location, as they failed to prove mutual acquiescence for the required period.
- Matter of Tammy Q. v Harold R.2026 NY Slip Op 06177
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s award of sole custody to the mother and denial of all forms of contact for the incarcerated father, finding that such contact was contrary to the child’s best interests. The court determined that the father’s violent crimes, long-term incarceration, and history of disregarding protection orders rebutted the presumption of visitation.
- People v Quick2026 NY Slip Op 06176
The court affirmed the conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish intent to sell. The court determined that possession of a substantial quantity of buprenorphine within a prison setting provided circumstantial proof of intent to sell, despite the absence of packaging materials.
- People v Bombard2026 NY Slip Op 06175
The court reversed the burglary conviction due to insufficient evidence proving the defendant had the intent to commit a crime at the moment of entry. It also ordered a new trial on the criminal trespass charge because the trial court erroneously precluded evidence of the defendant’s state of mind regarding permission to enter.
- People v Winston2026 NY Slip Op 06174
The court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences, reducing the tampering sentence to 1 to 4 years and the possession sentence to 4.5 years in the interest of justice. The court found that the original maximum sentence was unduly harsh given the disparity with the codefendant’s sentence and the defendant’s acquittal on the intent to sell charge.
- People v Morrishaw2026 NY Slip Op 06173
The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for promoting prison contraband and criminal possession of a weapon, finding that the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the suppression of statements and the admission of prior bad acts evidence.
- People v McCoy2026 NY Slip Op 06172
The Appellate Division affirmed the sentence imposed on the defendant, finding it was not harsh and severe despite the disparity between the pretrial plea offer and the post-trial sentence. The court emphasized the defendant’s extensive criminal history, his failure to accept responsibility, and his disrespectful behavior during the prosecution as key factors justifying the sentence.
- People v McCoy2026 NY Slip Op 06171
The Appellate Division affirmed the sentence for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, finding it was not unduly harsh or severe. The court determined that the trial court properly considered all relevant factors, including the defendant’s criminal history and lack of accountability, despite the defendant’s arguments regarding trial deficiencies.
- People v Brown2026 NY Slip Op 06170
The court affirmed the convictions for burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree, finding that the evidence was legally sufficient and supported by the weight of the evidence. The court also declined to correct the unpreserved challenge to the empanelment of an anonymous jury in the interest of justice.
- People v Anderson2026 NY Slip Op 06169
The court held that a trial judge’s off-the-record discussion with a juror regarding the instructions on deliberation constituted a nonministerial communication that violated the defendant’s right to be present. This violation constituted a mode of proceedings error mandating reversal of the convictions and a new trial, regardless of whether actual prejudice was shown.
Appellate Term, First Department
- Fifth Ave. 25G, LLC v Sambar2026 NY Slip Op 51760[U]
The court reversed the final judgments and remanded the matter for a traverse hearing because the tenant’s sworn nonconclusory denial of service created a factual issue regarding proper service. The court held that the tenant did not waive the personal jurisdiction defense by moving for summary judgment on the merits.
- Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v Linen2026 NY Slip Op 51759[U]
The appeal is dismissed as nonappealable because the order granting class certification was entered on default after the plaintiff failed to file opposition papers. The court held that the proper remedy was to move to vacate the default, not to seek reargument or appeal the underlying order directly.
- Decker Assoc., LLC v Deutsch2026 NY Slip Op 51758[U]
The court affirmed the judgment of possession, holding that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the Loft Board issued its final rent order in September 2024. The court also rejected the tenant’s laches defense because the delay in seeking rent increases was caused by the Loft Board rather than the landlord.
- Lafayette Nelson Apts., LLC v Perez2026 NY Slip Op 51747[U]
The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court’s judgment granting the landlord possession and rent arrears, finding that the tenant’s warranty of habitability defense failed because he did not make the apartment available for repairs. The court also noted that the tenant’s harassment counterclaim was abandoned and would be without merit regardless.
- 3890-98 Broadway Assoc. LLC v Hiraldo2026 NY Slip Op 51746[U]
The court affirmed the denial of the respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment, finding that the process server’s affidavit established proper service and the respondent’s conclusory denial was insufficient to rebut the presumption. Additionally, the respondent failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the holdover proceeding after failing to vacate a temporary apartment following the repair of her original unit.
- 525 W. 52 Prop. Owner v Tsokanos2026 NY Slip Op 51745[U]
The Appellate Term affirmed the final judgments awarding possession and damages, finding that the tenant’s challenge to the trial date acceleration was unavailing due to his prior acquiescence. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an adjournment request based on the tenant’s travel plans.
- Caban v Oscar’s Gold & Diamonds2026 NY Slip Op 51744[U]
The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to limit plaintiffs’ recovery to $550.00 because they failed to provide competent evidence that the converted jewelry was worth more. Additionally, the court ruled that plaintiffs were not entitled to damages based on the sentimental value of the items.
- East Harlem MEC Parcel C, L.P. v Smalls2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U]
The Civil Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the landlord’s motion to renew its opposition because the landlord failed to justify the delay and the new evidence would not change the prior determination. The court found that an unsworn letter from the Department of Buildings did not constitute a formal agency opinion or definitive final agency determination entitled to deference.
Also decided
- People v Williams 2026 NY Slip Op 06217 October 22, 2026
- People v Reyes 2026 NY Slip Op 06223 October 22, 2026
- People v Street 2026 NY Slip Op 06221 October 22, 2026
- People v Delacruz 2026 NY Slip Op 06219 October 22, 2026
- People v McGloster 2026 NY Slip Op 06218 October 22, 2026
- People v Wright 2026 NY Slip Op 06216 October 22, 2026
- People v F.G. 2026 NY Slip Op 06214 October 22, 2026
- People v E.E. 2026 NY Slip Op 06213 October 22, 2026
- People v Nasdaq 2026 NY Slip Op 06210 October 22, 2026
- Matter of Walter W. (Sabrina U.) 2026 NY Slip Op 06184 October 22, 2026
- People v Williams 2026 NY Slip Op 06208 October 22, 2026
- Matter of I.G.N. (E.N.) 2026 NY Slip Op 06205 October 22, 2026
- Gilbert v Powers 2026 NY Slip Op 06200 October 22, 2026
- Desai v Ninety Five Wall St. LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 06198 October 22, 2026
- Wilson v Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream 2026 NY Slip Op 06165 October 21, 2026
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v Nektalov 2026 NY Slip Op 06163 October 21, 2026
- People v Lema-Curillo 2026 NY Slip Op 06151 October 21, 2026
- People v Worrell 2026 NY Slip Op 06150 October 21, 2026
- People v Mendoza 2026 NY Slip Op 06144 October 21, 2026
- People v Martinez 2026 NY Slip Op 06143 October 21, 2026
- People v Liriano 2026 NY Slip Op 06141 October 21, 2026
- People v Hulse 2026 NY Slip Op 06138 October 21, 2026
- People v Graydon 2026 NY Slip Op 06136 October 21, 2026
- People v Gilchrist 2026 NY Slip Op 06134 October 21, 2026
- People v Castillo 2026 NY Slip Op 06131 October 21, 2026
- People v Bruno 2026 NY Slip Op 06130 October 21, 2026
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Katz 2026 NY Slip Op 06126 October 21, 2026
- Matter of Red Hook Boat Club, Inc. v Town Bd. of Town of Red Hook 2026 NY Slip Op 06122 October 21, 2026
- Matter of M. (Wanda) 2026 NY Slip Op 06119 October 21, 2026
- Matter of Carlos Gonzalez, a suspended attorney, respondent 2026 NY Slip Op 06116 October 21, 2026
- Montera v Ravitz 2026 NY Slip Op 06111 October 21, 2026
- People v A.Z. 2026 NY Slip Op 06076 October 20, 2026
- People v Gibbs 2026 NY Slip Op 06075 October 20, 2026
- People v Washington 2026 NY Slip Op 06074 October 20, 2026
Published October 24, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026.