Default judgments

Defendant failed to establish that the judgment, which was entered after defendant's default, was secured by extrinsic fraud. Regardless of the validity of his allegation that plaintiff concealed from him the scheduling of two court conferences, that information was available to defendant through e-courts, to which defendant previously admitted having access. Nor does defendant's contention that plaintiff engaged in intrinsic fraud by misrepresenting the scope of its work in the underlying action compel vacatur of the judgment because defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default and has not demonstrated a meritorious defense since the record reflects that, contrary to his contentions, plaintiff did not misrepresent the work it performed on his behalf in the underlying action.

Dunnington Bartholow & Miller, LLP v. Simon,, NY Slip Op 03878 (1st Dep't June 18, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Premises liability

A defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it. This burden may be established by presenting evidence that there was a storm in progress when the injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell.

Under the storm in progress doctrine, a landowner will not be held liable in negligence for a plaintiff's injuries sustained as the result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter. A lull in the storm does not impose a duty to remove the accumulation of snow or ice before the storm ceases in its entirety. However, even if a storm is ongoing, once a property owner elects to remove snow or ice, it must do so with reasonable care or it could be held liable for creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm. The failure to remove all the snow and ice, without more, does not establish that the defendant increased the risk of harm.

Archie v. Cunningham Assoc., L.P., NY Slip Op 03772 (2d Dep't June 17, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Derivative claims

The derivative claims that were asserted against the individual defendants on behalf of the condominium's unit owners are dismissed. It is undisputed that plaintiff has standing to pursue the direct claims in this matter based on a proper assignment of all litigation claims against defendants by his wife, the unit owner. However, neither the assignment, nor any other instrument, transferred to him the membership interest in the condominium that is required for the assertion of derivative claims on behalf of the unit owners.

Bent v. Cirone, NY Slip Op 03875 (1st Dep't June 18, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Quasi-estoppel

Quasi-estoppel is estoppel against inconsistent positions, and, like equitable estoppel, it is imposed by law in the interest of fairness to prevent fraud or injustice. In function, however, equitable estoppel seeks to protect the parties' reasonable expectations, whereas quasi-estoppel seeks to protect the integrity of litigation. Quasi-estoppel must be based on the previous assertion of a position so inconsistent with the one now taken as to make the present claim unconscionable.

Abdelhamed v. XYZ Limousine, Inc., NY Slip Op 03770 (2d Dep't June 17, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

The effective date of a lease is the date the tenancy commences, not the date on which the lease was executed.

Laspina v. 340 E. 198th St., LLC, NY Slip Op 03757 (1st Dep't June 16, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions

As defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact.

Danisi v. Diker A & V Contr. Corp., NY Slip Op 03755 (1st Dep't June 16, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur

Pllaintiff established a reasonable excuse for the default through counsel's detailed and credible explanation as to why the office was unaware of the scheduled court appearance. This was sufficient to show that any law office failure was inadvertent, pursuant to CPLR 5015[a][1]. Although counsel improperly commenced a second action asserting the amended claims, rather than moving immediately to vacate the default in this action, there is no evidence of dilatory behavior or an intent to abandon the action so as to warrant denial of the vacatur motion.

Amondi v. Promise Home Care Agency, Inc., NY Slip Op 03754 (1st Dep't June 16, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Moving to dismiss

A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging negligence may generally sustain its prima facie burden by negating a single essential element of that cause of action. In determining the motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The motion will not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility.

Brendel v. County of Suffolk, NY Slip Op 03660 (2d Dep't June 10, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Admissibility of translations

Defendant's supporting affidavit, which was translated from Spanish to English, is inadmissible because it was not accompanied by an affidavit attesting to the translator's qualifications and to the accuracy of the translation, and, thus, failed to comply with CPLR 2101(b).

Carranza-Rafael v. LRC Constr., LLC, NY Slip Op 03728 (1st Dep't 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

With three exceptions, the general rule is that a contractual obligation, standing alone, does not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party.

Aguilar-Lopez v. Idust Cleaning Servs. Corp., NY Slip Op 03726 (1st Dep't June 11, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Flag Day