Real Property Law: Purchaser for Value.

Pursuant to Real Property Law § 266, a bona fide purchaser for value is protected in its title unless it had previous notice of an alleged fraud. A bona fide purchaser's title is protected absent notice of the immediate grantor's fraudulent intent, or of fraud rendering void the title of the grantor.  In order to establish that it is a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and that it did not purchase with knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry. The intended purchaser must be presumed to have investigated the title, and to have examined every deed or instrument properly recorded, and to have known every fact disclosed or to which an inquiry suggested by the record would have led. Accordingly, a purchaser who fails to use due diligence in examining the title is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed.

Alli v Navins Holdings, Inc., NY Slip Op 05487 (2d Dep't October 8, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Corporate Law: Boards of Directors.

New York trial courts have expressly held that a board of directors is not an entity that may be sued separately from the corporation, and federal courts have held likewise.

Tahari v. 860 Fifth Ave. Corp., NY Slip Op 05584 (1st Dep't October 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal: Documentary Evidence.

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.

Artzy v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, NY Slip Op 05488 (2d Dep't October 8, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Court holiday.

Appellate pracctice.

The Appellate Division declines to consider plaintiff's unpreserved argument that the relation back doctrine under CPLR 203(f) is applicable, as it is not a purely legal argument that is apparent on the face of the record.

Wayman v, CPE Hous. Dev. Fund Co.,Inc., NY Slip Op 05485 (1st Dep't October 7, 2025)

Here is the decision

Motions to dismiss: Cross-claims.

Where a defendant is not liable on any causes of action in the complaint, the cross-claims against that defendant must be dismissed.

Dluzen v. Equinox Group, NY Slip Op 05486 (1st Dep't October 7, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Sanctions for frivolous conduct.

In its discretion, a court may award expenses and attorney's fees as a sanction for frivolous conduct. The party seeking sanctions has the burden to demonstrate that its opponent's conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c).

Contreras v. Jimmy"s Auto Top, NY Slip Op 05215 (2d Dep't October 1, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Evading service.

Defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment is denied, as the record supports an inference that defendant deliberately attempted to evade service. Through its chief executive officer's affidavit, defendant demonstrated that it did not receive notice of the summons in time to defend because it neglected to update its address with the Secretary of State. However, eight months before plaintiff commenced the action, plaintiff sent defendant a letter that was labeled a pre-litigation notice, that warned defendant that plaintiff would pursue all available legal remedies to recover the balance owed under their agreements, and that reserved all of plaintiff's rights, claims, and causes of action arising from their agreements. Defendant did not dispute that it received this notice. Despite knowing of the looming threat of litigation, defendant never updated its address with the Secretary of State.

Raistone Purchasing v. London Luxury, NY Slip Op 05324 (1st Dep't October 2, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions.

A party opposing summary judgment is entitled to obtain further discovery when it appears that there may be facts supporting the opposing party's position but the cannot then be stated. A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant. The mere hope or speculation that discovery may reveal evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment does not warrant denial of the motion.

Charles v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 05213 (2d Dep't October 1, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Unjust enrichment.

A cause of action for unjust enrichment does not lie where it merely duplicates or replaces a contract or tort claim, including tortious interference.

WarnerDirect, LLC v. Paramount Global, NY Slip Op 05330 (1st Dep't October 2, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate Practice: Bench Trials.

In reviewing a trial court's findings of fact following a non-jury trial, the Appellate Division's authority is as broad as that of the trial court and includes the power to render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.

Arden Besunder, P.C. v. Harwood, NY Slip Op 05211 (2d Dep't October 1, 2025)

Here is the decision.