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 the injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor. The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. Absent unusual or compelling circumstances, appellate courts are reluctant to disturb that determination.

Beckett v. Estate of Thomas Beckett, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2796, 2d Dep't April 29, 2026

Orders of preclusion

A conditional order of preclusion requires a party to provide specific discovery by a date certain, or incur sanctions. If the party fails to produce the discovery on time, the conditional order becomes absolute.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Sarwar, NY Slip Op 02621 (2d Dep't April 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Jurisdictional questions

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), "[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order." Where a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment raises a jurisdictional objection pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), and seeks a discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the court must resolve the jurisdictional question before determining whether to grant a discretionary vacatur of the default.

Atlantica, LLC v. Hunte, NY Slip Op 02619 (2d Dep't April 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Failure to oppose a motion

In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. Ignorance of the law, failure to retain an attorney, and confusion about the date of a conference do not constitute reasonable excuses.

166 N. 7 St., LLC v. Sung Kyu Khim, NY Slip Op 02617 (2d Dep't April 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

The admissibility of translations

The proponent of translated evidence has the burden of demonstrating that the translation was provided by a competent, objective interpreter whose translation was accurate. Generally, a certification that the translator is professionally qualified and is competent in both languages is sufficient. Here, however, the translator attestations state only that each translator was fluent in both Spanish and English, with no indication of any other credentials.

Gavilanes v. 919 Ground Lease, LLC, NY Slip Op 02451 (1st Dep't April 23, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Failure to answer or appear

On a motion for leave to enter judgment against a defendant for the failure to answer or appear, a plaintiff must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting its claim, and proof of the defendant's default. In opposition, the defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

Goode v. Bespoke Motor Group, LLC, NY Slip Op 02395 (2d Dep't April 22, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Adding a defendant

The relation-back doctrine permits the commencement of claims against a party that has not been timely sued, but which relate back to the original timely complaint. The plaintiff must establish all three prongs of the test for the addition of untimely claims or parties: (1) the new claims arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as that alleged in the original complaint; (2) the party to be added must be united in interest with one or more of the original defendants; and (3) the newly-added defendant knew, or should have known, that the action would have been timely commenced against it but for the plaintiff's  mistake as to the identity of the proper parties.

DiMiceli v. Credit Shelter Trust, NY Slip Op 02391 (2d Dep't April 23, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Recusal

The assigned Justice was not a party to and had not been an attorney in this proceeding, and petitioner does not contend that the Justice had an interest in the proceeding or was related to the parties.  It is of no consequence that the Justice was represented by the Office of the Attorney General in unrelated litigation before the Appellate Division. In the absence of any statutorily mandated disqualification and any legitimate suggestion of bias or impartiality, the assigned Justice's decision not to recuse was appropriate.

Matter of DuBose v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 02449 (1st Dep't April 23, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

Before filing the notice of appeal, the appellant failed to appear in this action and did not oppose either the motion for a default judgment and an order of reference or the motion for an order confirming the Referee's report and granting a final judgment of foreclosure and sale. Accordingly, the appellant is not aggrieved by Supreme Court's grant of plaintiff's motions, and may not appeal from the resulting orders. The Appellate Division need not consider the appellant's arguments for affirmative relief.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Adekola, NY Slip Op 02448 (1st Dep't April 23, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Declaratory judgments

Pursuant to CPLR 3001, "[t]he supreme court may render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy." The demand for relief in the complaint must specify the rights and other legal relations on which the declaration is requested, pursuant to CPLR 3017[b]. On a motion to dismiss the complaint, the issue is whether a cause of action for declaratory relief has been stated, not whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration.

Cox v. First Citizens Bancshares, Inc., NY Slip Op 02388 (2d Dep't April 22, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

Choice of law provisions typically apply only to substantive issues. In the absence of an express intention that a specific statute of limitations is to apply to the dispute, a choice of law provision cannot be read to encompass the limitations period.

Cincinnati Terrace Member LLC v. Tartar Krinsky & Drogin LLC, NY Slip Op 02369 (1st Dep't April 21, 2026)

Here is the decision.