Quasi-estoppel

Quasi-estoppel is estoppel against inconsistent positions, and, like equitable estoppel, it is imposed by law in the interest of fairness to prevent fraud or injustice. In function, however, equitable estoppel seeks to protect the parties' reasonable expectations, whereas quasi-estoppel seeks to protect the integrity of litigation. Quasi-estoppel must be based on the previous assertion of a position so inconsistent with the one now taken as to make the present claim unconscionable.

Abdelhamed v. XYZ Limousine, Inc., NY Slip Op 03770 (2d Dep't June 17, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

The effective date of a lease is the date the tenancy commences, not the date on which the lease was executed.

Laspina v. 340 E. 198th St., LLC, NY Slip Op 03757 (1st Dep't June 16, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions

As defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact.

Danisi v. Diker A & V Contr. Corp., NY Slip Op 03755 (1st Dep't June 16, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur

Pllaintiff established a reasonable excuse for the default through counsel's detailed and credible explanation as to why the office was unaware of the scheduled court appearance. This was sufficient to show that any law office failure was inadvertent, pursuant to CPLR 5015[a][1]. Although counsel improperly commenced a second action asserting the amended claims, rather than moving immediately to vacate the default in this action, there is no evidence of dilatory behavior or an intent to abandon the action so as to warrant denial of the vacatur motion.

Amondi v. Promise Home Care Agency, Inc., NY Slip Op 03754 (1st Dep't June 16, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Moving to dismiss

A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging negligence may generally sustain its prima facie burden by negating a single essential element of that cause of action. In determining the motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The motion will not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility.

Brendel v. County of Suffolk, NY Slip Op 03660 (2d Dep't June 10, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Admissibility of translations

Defendant's supporting affidavit, which was translated from Spanish to English, is inadmissible because it was not accompanied by an affidavit attesting to the translator's qualifications and to the accuracy of the translation, and, thus, failed to comply with CPLR 2101(b).

Carranza-Rafael v. LRC Constr., LLC, NY Slip Op 03728 (1st Dep't 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

With three exceptions, the general rule is that a contractual obligation, standing alone, does not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party.

Aguilar-Lopez v. Idust Cleaning Servs. Corp., NY Slip Op 03726 (1st Dep't June 11, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Flag Day

Dismissal for failure to prosecute

Defendant satisfied the prerequisites of CPLR 3216 by serving plaintiff with the court's order which warned that failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would result in dismissal of the action. Plaintiff failed to timely serve and file a note of issue or move to extend the time in which to comply with the demand. It was only after defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute that plaintiff filed a note of issue, almost two years after service of the order and six months after a second service of the order.

Plaintiff's conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure due to firm relocations and staffing changes failed to establish a justifiable excuse for the delay.

The court's scrivener's error in its sole reference to CPLR 3126 instead of CPLR 3216 did not render the order defective where the court repeatedly referred to and quoted from CPLR 3216, making it clear that the action was dismissed under the governing standards of the correct statute.

Aguilar v. TMP Wireless, Inc., NY Slip Op 03725 (1st Dep't June 11, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Entry of judgment

Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), "[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed." It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal. As long as proceedings are being taken, and those proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the action but to seek entry of judgment, the complaint should not be subject to dismissal.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Hamawi, NY Slip Op 03659 (2d Dep't June 10, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Depositions

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.20-b(a)(2), unless otherwise stipulated to by the parties or ordered by the court, "depositions shall be limited to 7 hours per deponent." However, "[f]or good cause shown, the court may alter the limits on the number of depositions or the duration of an examination," pursuant to § 202.20-b[f]. Good cause may be based on improper conduct or obstruction by the deponent or the attorney, or a proper showing that 7 hours was an insufficient amount of time within which to complete the deposition under the circumstances of the case.

Abad v. 288 Water St. Owner, LLC, NY Slip Op 03416 (2d Dep't June 3, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Leave to amend

Leave will be denied where the proposed cause of action is palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit.

75 Cohoes Realty Assoc., LLC v. Machnick Bldrs., Ltd., NY Slip Op 03415 (2d Dep't June 3, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Renewal

A motion to renew is a request by a party for the court to consider anew a prior motion in light of new facts or a change in the law that would change the determination of the prior motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2]. 

Estate of Margaret Kainer v. Christies, Inc., NY Slip Op 03506 (1st Dep't June 4, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment

Defendants cannot sustain their prima facie burden on their summary judgment motion merely by pointing to other possible causes of the crash, as there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident and there is no requirement that a plaintiff exclude every possible cause other than a defendant's breach of duty. 

DeRobertis v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 03505 (1st Dep't June 4, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

The appeal must be dismissed because no appeal lies from denial of a motion for reargument.

Anthony Partners, LLC v. Mici, NY Slip Op 03502 (1st Dep't June 4, 2026)

Here is the decision.

1944

Indemnification

When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed. The intention to indemnify in the context of an intraparty dispute must be unmistakably clear from the language of the promise and exclusively or unequivocally referable to claims between the parties themselves,

Board of Mgrs. of the 432 Park Condominium v. 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC, NY Slip Op 03381 (1st Dep't June 2, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Failure to prosecute

Supreme Court providently dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. Defendant satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3216 (b) and plaintiff failed to show a reasonable excuse for not serving and filing a note of issue within 90 days of defendant's demand or for the delay in prosecuting this action before and after receiving the demand. Plaintiff also failed to submit an affidavit of merit from a person with knowledge of the facts supporting his claim of negligence, as required by CPLR 3216(e). Plaintiff's response to defendant's discovery demands in opposition to the CPLR 3216 motion does not relieve him from the statutory requirements.

Ali v. K&H Steinway, LLC, NY Slip Op 03380 (1st Dep't June 2, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur

A party seeking to vacate a default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion. Determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. In making such a determination, the court may excuse delay or default resulting from law office failure. However, mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse.

Tulloch v. Barka, NY Slip Op 03330 (2d Dep't May 27, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Disqualification of counsel

To the extent defendant seeks litigation counsel's disqualification, she lacks standing because she does not allege that she is or was in an attorney-client relationship with it or that its representation of plaintiff would somehow result in the disclosure of confidential information.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Whyte, NY Slip Op 03375 (1st Dep't May 287, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Foreclosures

A plaintiff has standing in a mortgage foreclosure action when it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced. Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Julius, NY Slip Op 03291 (2d Dep't May 27, 2026)

Here is the decision.