Disqualification of an Attorney.

The disqualification of an attorney rests within the sound discretion of the court. Although a party's entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of its own choosing is a valued right, that right will not supersede a clear showing that disqualification is warranted. On a motion to disqualify an attorney, the moving party bears the burden of showing that disqualification is warranted.

Congregation Erech Shai Bais Yosef, Inc. v. Werzberger, NY Slip Op 05665 (2d Dep't October 15, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Unknown Defendants.

Pursuant to CPLR 1024, "[a] party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known." Reliance on the statute requires the plaintiff to exercise due diligence to identify the defendant prior to the running of the statute of limitations. Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the John Doe's name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party. The John Doe party must be described so as to fairly apprise the party that he is the intended defendant.

Abrego v. Tile World Import Corp., NY Slip Op 05661 (2d Dep't October 15, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to Renew.

Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for leave to renew, finding that the purportedly new facts would not have changed the judgment, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2].  The new information, which concerned whether respondents had relied on similar settlement agreements in other administrative proceedings, would not have altered the applicability of this settlement agreement to preclude judicial review.

383 W. Broadway Corp. v. Solomon, NY Slip Op 05741 (1st Dep't October 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal: Evidentiary Material.

Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one. Unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, the motion should be denied.

60 E. 196, LLC v. Tokio Mar. Specialty Ins. Co., NY Slip Op 05660 (2d Dep't October 15, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Negligence Claims.

The elements of a common-law negligence claim are a duty, its breach, and an injury proximately resulting therefrom. The duty element may be rooted in a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant or between the defendant and a third-person tortfeasor.

Aydiner v. Quijije, NY Slip Op 05489 (2d Dep't October 8, 2025)

Here is the decision.

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.