Leave to renew

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and must offer a reasonable justification for the failure to present the new facts on the prior motion. The new or additional facts presented either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the Supreme Court's discretion, be based on facts known to the party seeking renewal at the time of the original motion. While it is within the court's discretion to grant leave upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the prior motion, a motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation.

Jesan Constr. Group, LLC v. Bedford Mer, LLC, NY Slip Op 07290 (2d Dep't December 24, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Recusal

The motion for recusal is denied where the movant failed to argue that any alleged bias, prejudice, or unworthy motive affected any of the court's rulings. Moreover, none of the alleged bases for recusal was sufficient to show that the court was incapable of being impartial.

Alfred v. Brutus, NY Slip Op 07333 (1st Dep't December 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Notices of claim

Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, to allow a claimant to file a late claim. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; whether the claim appears to be meritorious; whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy. 'No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative. However, if a claim is legally deficient, leave to file a late claim should be denied even if the other factors favor the granting of the request.

Notice of the essential facts constituting the claim requires knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated, and not merely notice of the accident itself.

Kissoon v. State of New York, NY Slip Op 07292 (2d Dep't December 24, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Happy New Year at Columbus Circle

Motion practice

The eighth and ninth causes of action were discontinued with prejudice by stipulation, thus rendering unnecessary any substantive argument from defendant regarding these claims on its motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3217[a][2].

Piscetelli v. Deloitte Servs.., LLP, NY Slip 07232 (1st Dep't December 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Judicial immunity

New York courts have recognized that it is imperative to the nature of the judicial function that judges be free to make decisions without fear of retribution through accusations of malicious wrongdoing. Recognizing the distinct nature of the judicial process, judicial immunity protects judges only in the performance of their judicial functions. A logical extension of this premise is that other neutrally positioned government officials, regardless of title, who are delegated judicial or quasi-judicial functions should also not be shackled with the fear of civil retribution for their acts. The common law provides absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons, governmental or otherwise, who are integral parts of the judicial process.

Marrero v. State of New York, NY Slip Op 07294 (2d Dep't December 24, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. If the court considers evidentiary material, the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one. Affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that the plaintiff has no cause of action.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law.

Macru v. Shorefront Operating, LLC, NY Slip Op 07293 (2d Dep't December 24, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Storm-in-progress rule

Under the storm-in-progress rule, a property owner or a snow removal contractor will not be held liable for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow and ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm.

Walker v. Jonis Holdings II, LLC, NY Slip Op 07038 (2d Dep't December 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur

In this breach of contract action, the parties dispute whether plaintiff properly served defendant with the summons and complaint. At the commencement of the action in November 2022, plaintiff served the summons and complaint upon the Secretary of State and mailed the papers to defendant's business address. Defendant failed to appear in the action and the court granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment. On October 30, 2023, after an inquest, judgment was entered against defendant. One year later, defendant moved to vacate the default judgment and for leave to interpose a late answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Supreme Court denied the motion.

Defendant failed to show entitlement to vacatur under CPLR 5015(a)(4). The record includes evidence that plaintiff properly served the summons and complaint on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306, which, itself, constituted service on defendant. Defendant also failed to show an entitlement to vacatur based on plaintiff's purported failure to satisfy the additional mailing requirement of CPLR 3215 (g)(4)(ii). Plaintiff submitted proof that it executed additional service of the summons on the corporation by first class mail at the corporation's last known address, accompanied by a notice that service was effectuated on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306.

The affidavit by defendant's president in support of the motion to vacate included only vague and conclusory allegations of defendant's purported defense to plaintiff's claims, and thus did not make the requisite prima facie showing of a meritorious defense under CPLR 3215 (g)(4)(ii), CPLR 317, or CPLR 5015(a)(1). 

Affirmed.

Rubenstein Pub. Relations, Inc. v. Fleet Fin. Group, Inc., NY Slip Op 07235 (1st Dep't December 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal as abandoned

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." The statute is strictly construed, as the language is not discretionary, but mandatory. However, a court has the discretion to excuse a failure to timely seek a default if there is sufficient cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. The Appellate Division has interpreted this language as requiring both a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment, plus a demonstration that the cause of action is potentially meritorious. Although the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, reversal is warranted if that discretion is improvidently exercised

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wercberger, NY Slip Op 07040 (2d Dep't December 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Merry Christmas 1943

Christmas Eve 1964

Expert medical testimony

A medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, but the witness should have the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable. Questions regarding the precise nature and degree of the expert's experience go to the weight that the opinions should be given, which is a matter for resolution by a jury.

Diamond v. St. Anthony Community Hosp., NY Slip Op 06987 (2d Dep't December 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to renew

The motion for leave to renew was untimely since it was made after the time to appeal from the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale had expired.

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Maron, NY Slip Op 06986 (2d Dep't December 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Extending time

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to extend time for filing the note of issue. Plaintiff had good cause for an extension of time, demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the delay in providing disclosure, the inability to access bank records that had been locked because of an unrelated fraud, and good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes before proceeding to trial. The delays giving rise to the requested extension did not arise from willfulness in missing deadlines, but from legitimate difficulties encountered by both sides during discovery. Defendants did not oppose plaintiff's motion and they do not oppose plaintiff's appeal, and they had expressed their own need for an extension of time to obtain further discovery. The denial of plaintiff's motion left the parties in limbo where they could neither move forward to trial nor complete the discovery necessary to move forward to trial, thereby frustrating the strong public policy favoring open disclosure to allow the parties to prepare for trial. Motion granted.

SF Consultants, LLC v. 28 W. Group Corp., NY Slip Op 07122 (1st Dep't December 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Estates, powers, and trusts law

There can be no relief as against an estate absent the appointment of an executor or public administrator. The estate itself is a legal fiction which can only be sued through its personal representative, pursuant to EPTL 11-3.1.

Matter of 200 Claremont Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Estate of Elsie Lewis, NY Slip Op 07084 (1st Dep't December 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Setting aside a jury verdict

A jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence if the jury could not have reached the verdict based on any fair interpretation of the evidence.  A jury verdict that is irreconcilably inconsistent must be set aside.

Contona v. Godas, NY Slip Op 06982 (2d Dep't December 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

CPLR 306-b permits a court to dismiss a proceeding without prejudice or extend the time for service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice. Good cause and interest of justice are two separate and independent statutory standards. To establish good cause, a petitioner must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service. The more flexible interest of justice standard accommodates late service that might be due to mistake, confusion, or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the respondent. In deciding whether to extend time in the interest of justice, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with other factors including the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the proceeding, the length of delay in service, the promptness of the petitioner's seeking an extension, and prejudice to the respondent. The determination of whether to grant the extension in the interest of justice is within the discretion of the motion court.

Matter of Davis v. ACS-Kings, NY Slip Op 06860 (2d Dep't December 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motion practice.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in overlooking the failure to include a copy of the pleadings in plaintiff's initial summary judgment papers, because plaintiff attached a copy in its reply papers and there is no showing of prejudice. Plaintiff did not have to establish that it had standing as a predicate to summary judgment, since defendant waived that defense by not raising it in his answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss. It is of no moment that plaintiff may not have properly authenticated the two letters submitted in support of the motion, as defendant, in his answer, admitted that he had received a written demand for payment.

CLNC 2019-FL1Funding, LLC v. Bennett, NY Slip Op 06893 (1st Dep't December 11, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Administrative law.

Judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to whether it was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. An agency's determination is arbitrary and capricious when it is without a sound basis in reason or the facts. If the court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency. Moreover, an agency's interpretation of the statutes and regulations that it administers is entitled to deference, and must be upheld if reasonable. 

Matter of East Riv. Group, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, NY Slip Op 06861 (2d Dep't December 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.