Appellate Practice.

The denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Santiago, NY Slip Op 06300 (1st Dep''t November 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Legal Malpractice.

In order to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney's breach of duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages. In addition, the plaintiff must establish that there was an attorney-client relationship. An attorney's conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff's damages if but for the attorney's negligence, the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action, or would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages.

Coniglio v. Dansker & Aspromonte Assoc., NY Slip Op 06154 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate Practice.

The Appellate Division is empowered to address an issue which was fully argued by the parties but not addressed by the Supreme Court.

Bamonte v. Charatan, NY Slip Op 06152 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Failure to Appear.

What constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default generally lies within the sound discretion of the motion court. The reasonable excuse determination is sui generis and should be based on all relevant factors, including the length of the delay, the existence of any prejudice, whether the default was willful, and the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits.

Metropolis Elec. Corp. v. Vector Bldg. Corp., NY Slip Op 06259 (1st Dep't November 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Time-Barred Claims.

On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to present admissible evidence establishing that the action was timely or to raise a question of fact as to whether the action was timely. Where an action involves claims that could have been made in another proceeding for which there is a specific limitation period, the action is subject to the shorter limitations period. So, where a proceeding could have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applies.

Argo v. NYCERS, NY Slip Op 06151 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Fraud on the Court.

A fraud on the court involves willful conduct that is deceitful and obstructionist, which injects misrepresentations and false information into the judicial process so serious that it undermines the integrity of the proceeding.

Taveras v. Tuck-It-Away Assoc., L.P., NY Slip Op 06148 (1st Dep't November 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Injunctive Relief.

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must establish (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor.

Doering v. Oelsner, NY Slip Op 06048 (2d Dep't November 5, 2025)

Here is the decision.

A Cause of Action for Conversion.

A cause of action sounding in conversion lies when someone, intentionally and without authority, assumes or exercises control over personal property belonging to someone else, interfering with that person's right of possession.

Antebi v. Guindi, NY Slip Op 06044 (2d Dep't November 5, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal of Affirmative Defenses.

CPLR 3211(b) provides that "[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit." When moving to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the affirmative defenses are without merit as a matter of law because they either do not apply under the factual circumstances of the case,or fail to state a defense. On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), the court should apply the same standard it applies to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the factual assertions of the defense will be accepted as true. If there is any doubt as to the availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed.

Diversified Bldg. Co., LLC v. Nader Enters., LLC, NY Slip Op 06047 (2d Dep't November 5, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Court Holiday.

Iwo Jima, February-March 1945

The Sufficiency of a Pleading.

At the pleading stage, all that is required is that the plaintiff plead statements that are sufficiently particular to give the defendant notice of the occurrence intended to be proved, pursuant to CPLR 3013.

TerraCotta Nine, LLC v. BR 52, LLC, NY Slip Op 06149 (1st Dep't November 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.